April 8, 2026 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:21] Nope. Renee, are you ready? Yeah? Great! Everyone's here? Everyone's. Did Claire get back on? I believe… Back on, yes, thank you. Yep. Okay, great. Okay. The April meeting… Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the April 8th, 2026 Landmarks Board Meeting. It's 6.02 p.m. Marci, will you review the virtual meeting decorum? Yes, good evening, Landmarks Board. Let's see, the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members.

[1:12] As well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. The following are examples of the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online, and currently only audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:06] For the applicants for the public hearings tonight, you'll be promoted for the applicant presentation, and you'll have the ability to turn on your camera and your microphone, but for others speaking, to the item, and during open comment, it's audio only. So, here's a couple shortcuts. The, raise hand function can be found in the reactions menu, or a shortcut, Alt-Y if you're on a PC, and Option-Y if you're on a Mac, and Star 9 if you're calling in on the phone. Back to you, Renee. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archive and on the YouTube within 28 days of the meeting. We will do a roll call vote. Roll call and brief introductions. Michael? Michael Ray, Vice Chair of the Landmarks Board. John? John Tecker, member of the Landmarks Board.

[3:02] Chelsea? Kelsey Castellano, member of the Landmarks Board. And our newest member, Alex. Did we lose him? I just saw him. There you go. Hey, Alex Weinheimer, member of the Landmarks Board. Great, and I am Renee Globeck, Chair of the Landmarks Board. We have a quorum this evening. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about these projects. We want to hear you, and we have found that it's more productive if you are speaking to persuade us, rather than to berate us, staff, or the applicant. As with regular board… landmark boards meetings, you will only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Requests to speak outside of these times are denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak let us know by raising their virtual hand.

[4:03] As chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made. We are now going to swear in our newest member of the Landmarks Board. I will pass it to Marci and Chris. Good evening, Landmarks Board members. Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney, and I've got the privilege this evening to swear in our newest member, Alex Weinheimer. The City Charter requires all officers for the City of Boulder to take an oath, and so this isn't just a Landmarks Board thing, this is a charter requirement for all public officers of the City of Boulder. So, Alex, I'm just gonna read you the oath, and Hopefully you say I do at the end of it here, okay? So, you can go ahead and raise your right hand. That you, Alex Weinheimer, solemnly swear or affirm that you will support the Constitution of the United States of America, and of the State of Colorado, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Boulder.

[5:13] and faithfully perform the duties of the office as a member of the Landmarks Board, of which you are about to enter. I do. It is, it is so. Thank you. And, there'll be a written document that, we'll get you to sign when we're in person, so we have a… a written record of it as well. Thank you. That's it. Thanks, Chris. Welcome, Alex. Yes, welcome. cup. Thanks, Chris. Does anyone… well, we will move on to… we have minutes from two meetings to approve tonight. We'll start with the February special meeting. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the February 25th meeting?

[6:02] Nope. I approve that we move these meetings. Minutes. Do we have a second? Yeah, I'll second. Thank you, John. Seconds, and John seconds the motion. We'll do a roll call. John? Aye. Michael? Aye. Chelsea? Bye. And I vote aye. And Alex, we just didn't have a roll call for you because you didn't attend those meetings. So, not leaving you out, it's just what it is. Next is the Martian. meeting. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the March 4th meetings? I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Michael. Michael Sex… Sex. Seconds the meeting motion. We'll do a roll call vote. John?

[7:02] I… Michael? Aye. Chelsea? Hi. And I vote aye. We'll now… we'll now move to public participation for non-agenda items. This is a speech… this is to speak to topics other than the public hearings. As a reminder, we are no longer swearing people in for open comment. If you would like to speak, please raise your virtual hand when speaking. Please state your full name and proceed. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Mariah, do we have any virtual speakers this evening? I'm waiting to see hands raised. Okay, looks like we have… One, Lynn Siegel, let me pull up the timer really quick.

[8:00] Alright, Lynn, please state your name, and you can… Go ahead and start! First, I need to know what the hearings are on. This is actually just, public comment, not for hearing. I know, so I can't speak to the hearing, so I need to know what they're on. I look through the agenda, but I forget. I do a lot of things in the course of a day. Usually they say what the public hearings are, so you don't talk about them. Hmm… It's just a second. So we have 409 Mountain View Road. We have 210 Arapahoe Avenue, called the Chestnut House. We have 2106 Arapahoe Avenue, called the Arapaho House. Great, thank you. Regarding… The Arapaho Bungalows, which I went to Planning Board for last night. I really feel that… That big, large building

[9:04] With Ruth Wright from 1971. Height limitation. It was built in 63 ahead of that. Personally, I think that building should go down. And I know it can't. But I think it should. We'd get a lot of great views of the Flatirons. But, in lieu of it not being able to, we need to see… the public needs to have a face to the fact that this densification madness has got to stop. And when we see a big, huge building next to these four little bungalows, it really speaks. To what's going on. And that's really important for people to remember. Not out in Lafayette, when they move the building somewhere, and I know that just one was landmarked, and I didn't agree with that at all. They all needed to go together. They're sisters, they're…

[10:05] They make an impact that way. They get completely dwarfed by this giant building that's added on. And when those people bought those buildings, they couldn't make any assumptions that they were going to just be able to unload them. And I just feel like it's a slap in the face to the community. And I don't say this to, you know, berate you, as you warned me about in the beginning, which, you know. I'm surprised about the person that wrote that precursor to speaking, because, you know, when someone tells me what to do. I want to do exactly the opposite. Just like anyone, just like little kids. You don't… treat people that way. Like, oh, you better not do this, you better be nice to us. No, I have a right to say what I think, and I think we need to keep

[11:06] Those 4 bungalows. All four of them, and I don't know how you're gonna do it, but doing one of them was… sorry, Michael, a really bad move. Because they shouldn't be moved off of that space. And… It speaks so much to all architecture and historical architecture in Boulder to see that in our face, what was then and what is now, and in between. And… Most of you need to just blink, and you're not gonna know this place tomorrow. Mariah, do we have other virtual? Participants? If anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand.

[12:05] I don't see anything else. Great. We will move on. Marcy, let's discuss… Pending applications. For demolition and landmark alterations, any pending applications? Alright, for pending LAC and demo applications, we have, one pending stay of demolition for the fire station number 3 building at 1580… 5. 30th Street, if you recall, at your February meeting, the Landmarks Board, reviewed a demolition application for the building and voted to place a stay of demolition to look at alternatives. We haven't held a meeting to talk about alternatives. The applicant team, it's a city-owned building, so the applicant team is from Facilities. They were… they took the direction of the Landmarks Board that the building is eligible, and then have spent the last, 2 months or so

[13:12] preparing a pre-application to help understand all of the different, regulations and processes for this property, and so I know they have submitted a pre-application, but don't have more of an update, for you all this evening. you do have one more meeting, until you have to make a scheduling decision, and so at your next regular meeting on May 6th. That's the last regularly scheduled meeting for the scheduling decision, and then the hearing would be held on June 4th, and that's the last meeting before the stay expires, on June 15th. Any questions, or…

[14:00] Anything about that? I just had a, a comment, and I'm thinking about this building, and so I just want to, ask the Landmarks board member, board members during the week. In the next week, or the next month, if anybody could… if everyone could think of a repurpose of this building, and think… by, you know, driving by and something, if, like, what would they want to see there? So, I just kind of want a brainstorming session, to just, you know, think of what would be a really great, awesome. you know, activity in this building. And so, just putting it out there, trying to do our due diligence as board members. So, if I could request that all the board members Bring forth an idea, that would be really great. You want them tonight? Well, I don't know if we want to take up time in the public hearing, but, and I know, Chris can…

[15:04] shoot me down, but I think that you could probably email me individually, and or call me and let me know any ideas, so that we could have a discussion later on. Okay, very good idea, Renee. So great. We'll move on to our first public hearing. This is a public hearing in consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to construct a new approximately 800 square foot accessory building at 409 Mountain View Road, HIS2026-00035, a non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill District. Pursuant to Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code of 1981, and under the proceedings prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, BRC 1981.

[16:07] The owner is Jerry Macrame… Macramea? I'll probably say it wrong, so I apologize. And the applicant is ARC11, represented by, Matthew Rouse. I'll hand it over for Marcy for the staff presentation. Alright, thank you. So, I'll go through the quasi-judicial hearing process. First, all speaking to the item are sworn in. That includes me, Marcy Gerwing, principal planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'll pause to allow board members to note any ex parte contacts, that's any conversations you may have had, about this property, any site visits you made, or anything that, you maybe know about this property that isn't in the packet.

[17:04] Seeing none, I'll continue. 2… The next slide. Oh, sorry. Here we go. Okay, so here's an overview of the process that we'll go through. I'll give a staff presentation, followed by board questions, and then the applicant will have 10 minutes to present to the board, and the board may ask questions of the applicant. We'll then open the public hearing, and after all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said. The board will then deliberate, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. A record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, typically sooner. The criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-11-18B and C, and the review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property.

[18:07] That the work does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, and that the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property. And finally, that the Landmarks Board will consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced accessibility. The options for the Landmarks Board tonight are to either approve the application, and that decision is subject to a 16-day call-up period by City Council. The Landmarks Board may also deny the application, which would be subject to a 30-day period in which Council could review the decision. This is the applicant's appeals process. However, a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months, so if the board is headed in that direction, they typically provide the applicant an opportunity to withdraw, the case.

[19:08] The application in front of you tonight is for the construction of a new accessory building. We accepted the application on February 10th of this year, and new freestanding construction over 340 square feet requires review by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing, so that brings us to tonight, April 8th, 2026. This property may be familiar to some of the Landmarks Board members if there have been recent LAC applications reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. In 2024, the LDRC reviewed and approved a design for an addition to the house, which is currently under construction. Renee was on that review. And in February of 2026, just a few months ago, the LDRC approved the replacement of windows on the main house, and Chelsea and Michael were on the DRC for that application.

[20:00] So this, property is located on the north side of Mountain View Road, mid-block between 4th and 5th Streets, and within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The site slopes down from the alley to Mountain View Road, and the house is set back at the rear of the lot and abuts the alley. The house was constructed between 1889 and 1898 of coursed stone, and newer alterations to the house include the trapezoid-shaped windows at the gable end, a dormer at the facade, a shed roof addition at the elbow of the gables, which was replaced The original entry and side additions. A subterranean garage and roof deck facing Mountain View were added around 1995. The addition at the south elevation was removed as part of the work for the new addition on the south side. And although the house was originally constructed within the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, in its review, the LDRC determined the building to be non-contributing to the historic character of the district due to the extent of alterations.

[21:05] Here are a couple, current site photos of the primary building, the top left being, from the south elevation, showing the new addition under construction. The top right is of the west elevation, the bottom left is of the north elevation which faces the alley, and the bottom right is the east elevation. The staff analysis includes key site and setting characteristics, mass and scale, key building elements, and materials and detailing. The analysis of the key site and setting characteristics include its setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. The new accessory building is proposed to be located at the rear of the lot, setback 3 feet from the alley and from the east property line. A mature ponderosa pine and small European ash are proposed to be removed.

[22:00] The upper level of the building is approximately 22 feet wide at the alley and 14 feet deep into the lot. The lower portion of the building extends approximately 20 feet… 23 feet deep into the lot. New proposed hardscaping includes a patio area to the south and west of the proposed building, interior to the lot, and stairs at the west and south elevations. The guidelines encourage maintaining a human scale and character along the alley, and to not detract from the overall historic character or removal of a site feature, such as a mature tree. The guidelines also state that construction of a new accessory building at the rear of the lot is encouraged, respecting a traditional relationship of such buildings to the primary structure and site, and to maintain adequate spacing between accessory buildings so alleys do not evolve into tunnel-like passageways. And to preserve a backyard area between the house and the accessory buildings, and maintain the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area.

[23:02] Staff finds that the construction of the proposed new building requires the removal of a mature tree, which is considered a site feature, and that the site is unusual in that the house is located at the rear of the lot, where a typical lot in the historic district has the house at the front of the lot and an accessory building at the rear along the alley. As such, the subject property does not have a traditional backyard area between the house and accessory building. While the proposed area between the house and accessory building will be hardscaped, staff considers the general proportion of built mass to open space on the entire lot is consistent with the patterns found in the district. There is an existing shed on the northwest corner of the lot, and the new accessory building is proposed at the northeast corner. 3 feet from an accessory building on the adjacent property. Staff considers the building location as appropriate, as it will not create a tunnel-like effect as the space between the accessory buildings, which is about 16 and a half feet, is proposed to remain open with a low fence. However, the solid continuous wall of a new building at the pedestrian level may not maintain a human scale or be sensitive to pedestrians.

[24:12] Staff reviewed the mass and scale of the proposed design, including the height, form, massing, scale, and size, and overall proportion of the design. The proposed building is of framed construction with a gable roof form and a shed roof projection to the east. The building is approximately 800 square feet in size, 300 square feet on the upper level, and 500 square feet on the lower level, which is partially below grade. The building is approximately 13 feet tall on the north, which is the alley elevation, which is about 5 inches shorter than the main ridge of the primary house. The shed roof portion is approximately 9 feet tall at the alley, and the gable form is a moderate 8-12 pitch, which is shallower than the steeply pitched roof of the house, and is proposed without eaves or gutters. There's one window opening on the north side, central to the gable, facing the alley.

[25:05] The proposed total height of the building from grade on the south elevation is approximately 22 feet 8 inches. The guidelines state that while new construction should be a product of its own time, they also say to create compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements. Take design cues from the primary structure on the site, but be subordinate to it in terms of size and massing. The roof form and pitch should be complementary to the primary structures, and accessory buildings should be small in scale and mass, and constructed in a manner that is complementary to the character of the house and alley. The Mapleton Hill Historic District has a variety of historic accessory buildings, from utilitarian buildings to ornate carriage houses. The proposed design appears to reference utilitarian accessory buildings with traditional forms and board and batten siding. The design takes cues from the primary house in its gabled roof form and metal roof.

[26:00] Staff finds that the form of the proposed accessory building along the alley is relatively small in scale and mass. The accessory building is secondary in importance to the primary house, as it is smaller and simpler in design. However, the perceived scale of the building appears larger than a 13-foot, one-story building due to the lack of detailing, ornamentation, or openings at the pedestrian level. The person door on the west elevation measures 8 feet in height, where a traditional door measures 6'8". The single window opening on the alley elevation is located 7 feet above grade. The key building elements include analysis of the windows and doors. The proposed design has minimal openings on the elevations visible from the public right-of-way. The north elevation facing the alley includes one rectangular window opening, located approximately 7 feet above grade, and measures about 3 feet tall and 18 inches wide. There are no window and door openings on the east side, except for a skylight at the east-facing gable roof. And there is a single-person door at the upper portion of the west elevation of the building that measures 8 feet tall. The lower portion includes a trio of sliding glass doors.

[27:09] The south elevation, interior to the lot, includes a variety of window and door openings. On the upper level, there is a single window that… at the southwest corner, and a trio of sliding doors. The lower level includes a trio of vertically proportioned windows and a trio of sliding glass doors. The guidelines state to keep accessory buildings simple in design and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. Windows and doors should reflect traditional patterns and proportions, and for elevations visible from public streets, the relationship of solid to void should also be compatible. New construction should be a product of its own time, and that it is inappropriate to introduce features or details to a garage or accessory building in an attempt to create a false historical appearance. The guidelines encourage compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements and state that simplicity is an important aspect of creating compatible new construction.

[28:06] However, staff considers the utilitarian character of the proposed design does not reference its historic setting. While the form and detailing are simple, revisions should be made to further tie it to its context of the historic district. The relationship of solid to voids, including the lack of openings along the pedestrian level of the alley. Follow traditional patterns found on surrounding historic accessory buildings. However, the scale and proportion of the openings, in particular the person door and the west elevation, should be reduced to reflect traditional openings. Analysis of the materials and details include the scale, proportion, texture, type, and finish of materials. The accessory building is proposed to include a dark gray standing seam metal roof with metal siding in the same color. The gable portion includes 12-inch vertical standing seam panels that fill the wall on the gable end. And the upper level of the shed roof portion includes a 6-inch lap metal siding.

[29:03] The lower level is proposed to be clad in sandstone veneer. Windows, doors, and skylights are proposed to be aluminum and painted black. Lighting, locations, guttering, materiality of the railing, pathway, and hardscaping, steps, and alley apron were not provided in the application. Proposed changes to the existing fence were also not provided. The guidelines for materials and details state that finished materials should be compatible with, but not seek to replicate original finished materials. Use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish, and character to those used historically. And materials should be compatible with those found on the primary structure in the district. Fences should have some degree of openness and spacing of slats so that the main structure on the site remains visible from the alley. And skylights that are installed on a historic roof should be as unobtrusive as possible and not visible from the public street. And the guidelines, state that… to minimize the visual impact of solar collectors.

[30:02] Staff found that while the proposed metal roof and stone on the lower level reference the primary building, the use of metal siding is not a material traditionally used in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, and will detract from the overall character. of the historic district. Traditional materials like treated wood and painted smooth cementitious siding meet the non-combustible requirements of the wildland urban interface area, and are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those found historically. Application materials do not include detailing of lighting locations and other details, and those should be reviewed to ensure they will not detract from the overall character of the site. Material of the pathway? Oh, as the property is within the wildland-urban interface WUI area, fencing material within 8 feet of any building must be constructed of a non-combustible material. A wrought iron style fence meets both the guidelines and the WUI requirements, and other fence styles may be appropriate and considered as part of the review process.

[31:05] Accessory structures are generally an appropriate location for solar panels. So with that, staff considers that if stated conditions are met, the proposed new construction of an accessory building will meet the standards of issuance of an LAC. And staff recommends the condition of approval include revisions of the siding material to a material that better respects the pedestrian experience and historic setting of the district. Reduction of the scale and proportion of the person door at the west elevation to better reflect traditional openings and maintain a human scale, and review of final details. With that, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the findings, that the project will meet the standards for issuance of an LAC, and recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the landmark alteration Certificate with conditions. Staff's recommended conditions may be modified by the Landmarks Board. They include the following.

[32:05] Which would be reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. That is, to revise the metal siding to a traditional material, like treated wood or painted cementitious siding, that's similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those found historically in the district. Reduce the scale and proportion of the person door on the west elevation. And propose, final detailing, for the project, as well as for fencing. That concludes the staff presentation. We now move to any questions that the board may have for staff. After that, we'll move to the applicant presentation, followed by public participation, the applicant's response, and then board deliberation. Thank you. Does any board member have questions for Seth? Marcy, is there… is there an opportunity after the applicant presentation to… for the board to ask questions, or is now the time?

[33:02] Yeah, so you can ask questions after the staff presentation, after the applicant's presentation, of any of the people who speak, under public comment. Your question should just be before the board goes into deliberation. Okay. Thanks. Oh, wait until after the applicant presentation. Okay. It looks like John has his right hand raised. Yeah, I'll… do what? Cause… And wait until the final portion of it. Okay. Alex or Chelsea? Nope. Okay. Now, let's move to the applicant presentation. If you're here as an applicant for this hearing, can you please raise your hand so I can promote you?

[34:22] Hi, Matt! Hello! Can everybody see and hear me? Great. Let's see, I think we can… Stay on this slide, and then we have… well, we can stay on this slide, too. While I speak over it. Essentially, first of all, I'd like to thank the LDRC staff for meeting with us prior to the submission, kind of to help us guide our design process within the kind of Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines. ARC11, along with the owner, have worked with the staff to obtain the LAC approval on the addition that's currently under construction. So we kind of value the historic nature of the site, the existing building, and

[35:08] Kind of tried to work diligently within the kind of many restrictions and regulations, imposed on the site. Specifically, I think the view from Mountain View Road, the view corridor to the existing stone building, that has kind of pushed and confined the new addition to the far east side of the lot, while trying to save kind of as much vegetation and character of the site as mandated. So, I think with that kind of… additionally approved, kind of leading the way to the only possible spot we could put this building. I think it should be noted that everything from its size to location to height is by right. There are no variances requested for this. And it's kind of been the only place it can be on the rear of the lot, given this very unique site.

[36:00] So that kind of leads into, the auxiliary kind of building LEC submission that we, created. And, first like to say we completely understand all the staff recommendations and conditions, for this, as stated. I think we'd just like to kind of elaborate briefly on a few points related to how we arrived at the design and material palette. Just kind of to give people an idea of where we… where we came from as a design team. But first, for a little bit of clarification, the building footprint is only 406 square feet. And that's the, kind of, the lower level that's buried in the hill. It's 406 in the drawings, as opposed to 500. And then there's a 304 square foot enclosed upper auxiliary portion that has a roof deck on the lower level. So technically, I guess it's only about 710 square feet.

[37:00] Only about 300 of so is visible from the alley, because the rest is, Pretty much buried, partially buried. So, as it relates to the kind of square footage in the initial code review spreadsheet that we submitted with the application, that kind of reduced square footage shown is the FAR calc. That's the kind of reduced percentage, because essentially half of the building is, below grade. So I just wanted to clear that up a little bit on, kind of square footages. And… let's see here… we can kind of speak to this diagram a little bit. Just wanted to show… All the other auxiliary buildings in the alley. Ours is the kind of red one there with the 304, that's the building on top. That's really only… the only thing visible from the alley. Obviously, from the site, you can see the lower section. But it is… you know, on the smaller side of all the buildings on the alley, especially those across the alley on pine, you can see our much larger footprint. So, again, confined area, very unique site.

[38:07] And I think we tried as best we could to kind of work within the kind of scale and massing of not only this historic district, but the rest of the kind of uniqueness of, alleys in Boulder. So I think, speaking specifically to, General Design Guideline 6.1, The replication of historic architecture and new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be compatible with historic context, they must also be recognizable as new construction. New construction should be a product of its own time. So to that statement, how we interpret it is as… excuse me, interpret it as, our proposal for the standing seam metal.

[39:00] Which is similar in width and kind of shadow line of the traditional wood board and bat siding. Kind of used as the same strategy as the projects that use the cement board or the hardy board, which in itself is a modern material that's trying to do the same thing, kind of mimic the traditional wood board and bat siding. So our kind of viewpoint is that the standing seam metal is just as authentic as a cement board in replicating, you know, the shadowing width of a wood board and bat siding. And while metal siding might not be, kind of, traditional use as a material. and the Mapleton Hill Historic District, I think that's the point. It's meant to be a product of its own time, not create a false historic context, and it was kind of a concerted effort to not confuse this building for something that It's historic by way of its material and detailing. So…

[40:01] See, Mapleton Hill Historic District Guideline P3. If a new accessory structure is to be constructed, design ideas might be found in existing historic accessory buildings located nearby. Sorry, I got a little bit of a cold here, so I'm trying not to cough. Similar to 406 Pearl Street, which was a precedent sent to us by LDRC staff. Which was kind of in the end of… the PDF that was posted online are kind of break in fenestration and scale The orientation of the vertical siding changing to horizontal, was actually a direct effort to kind of create a more human and pedestrian scale, per the guideline D.2. And this kind of orientation change also breaks down the kind of perceived massing of the building, and it takes its direct cues from actually the tight horizontal cladding of the accessory buildings in the alley, 425 Mountain View Road, 410 Pine Street, 432 Pine Street, 436 Pine Street, and 444 Pine Street.

[41:07] all have the tight horizontal cladding. So it is, you know, kind of our interpretation of the human scale as, kind of put forth in that guideline, D2. And then kind of related to the openings, There is no opening on the east side because of fire separation. Even though it's 3 feet off the lot line, it's right next to another accessory building. I don't think you're ever really gonna see that view, except for a very short glimpse of it. Obviously, the kind of high window is for safety and security on the alley side, the north side, but that's also kind of a fire separation requirement. We could put a bigger window there, but again, I think we all agreed that it was kind of part of the, historic context to have no windows. Actually, I think 410 and 432 on Pine Street have no windows on their facade.

[42:04] But as it kind of relates to the person door. I totally understand the kind of scale question. The 8-foot height was kind of an attempt to bring in more light from the west into the space, and I think, you know, possible concession would be to create, like, a framed 7-foot door with a glass light and a 1-foot transom above it. So you get that kind of human-scale door with the frame, and then we have, you know, a kind of… A glass light above it in the opening, so you can kind of get that break and bring it down to human scale. And then lastly… If we could go to the next slide… This is actually, was a part of the presentation, but I wanted to send through essentially an augmented colored version of the site plan. The kind of lighter green are the trees that are being kept.

[43:03] As kind of part of our addition, proposal Two of the trees had to be removed, and that's number 10 up in the upper corner, showing essentially because they were already, in bad shape, they were diseased. They had cracks in the trunks, so those were approved to be removed in the previous, submission. The two trees to the south of that We were going to try to keep, but we wouldn't know their condition until we essentially started excavating. So the owner's intent has always been to keep as many trees on the site as possible. He, you know, also… likes, the kind of verdant nature of this neighborhood, and the, you know, essentially the, the corridors and views, specifically from, you know, Mountain View Road, I think was the biggest one, and still from the alley. So what you see here in the middle drawing, the darker green are all the trees and vegetation that are proposed to be

[44:04] Planted back on the site. So you can kind of see that eastern buffer, because we had to push the addition so close to the, east side of the lot. it was pretty clear once we excavated that the two trees we were trying to keep, the roots were, undermined by the foundation of the garage that was built before. And as the contractors were On-site building and the big windstorms that we were having, as everybody knows in the past couple months. pretty strong, and the trees were swaying, and the root balls were getting pulled out, because the roots were undermined by the existing garage. So it was determined, even though we wanted to keep the trees, to remove them for safety, not only of the contractor, but of the, the neighbors. So, it looks like my time is up, but I just wanted to… And with this image showing all the plants that… and trees that we plan to bring back, specifically, the large kind of silver maple to the west of the ADU, as a replacement for the

[45:06] kind of ponderosa pine that unfortunately needed to be removed if we were to move forward with this proposal, and pretty much the only spot we can build the building. Yeah. Thanks, Matt. Thank you. Do we have… Isn't there a time? Oh. Marci, aren't we allowed to ask the applicant for questions? Yes, no, this time. Yeah, it's not on my list. I'm like, whoops! I think we're allowed to ask. So, does anybody have any, staff, board members have any questions for our applicant, Matt? Oh, Michael? I think John had his hand raised first. Okay. Just in case there's overlap, which there always is a little bit, I'll let John go first.

[46:02] Yeah, there may be. Mine's a fairly quick question. Hmm. The, on the lower level, the exposed interior lower level of the project. The… the gang doors that were shown there, it looked like… are those… are those meant to be stacking or… or folding doors? I'm like a… So they're… they're nanowall doors, so essentially. Yeah, they are Nana, okay. Yeah, so there's a person door for daily access, and then they essentially stack, so that whole opening can be open, and that's the kind of lower studio that then, kind of connects to the… you know, what the owner feels is essentially going to be a kind of lush garden area with, again, all this kind of planting back, and rock work. It's a little hard to see that in the construction photos from the presentation, because it's obviously just a big dirt site, but A lot of what you see in that photo is gonna come back with dirt, so really you're gonna see a little bit of the addition, and then essentially that whole

[47:03] kind of east, property line is going to be replanted, and this is the kind of connection almost subterranean connection into this kind of lower studio area. But that would be upstairs, would be actually a 3-panel slider. Okay, so that one's flat slider. Yeah. Okay. That… that was my questions. And it also… what… what… What is interesting is that you did shed light on that kind of subgrade space. I think is important to say at this. I guess. level of review. Thank you. Thanks. I have… I have… one question for the applicant, but then I… I have three questions or clarifications needed from Marcy. So I'll go with the applicant first, and this is a great… what you're showing on the screen is perfect, and… and…

[48:05] I'm sorry, but I'm, like, a nitpicky architect guy, so, like, glazing, to me, is… is meant to be illustrated as dark, as voids in the wall. What I see in this, and I'm just asking for clarification, is we are not looking at frosted glass here. We… your intention is that they be clear glass, not… not as illustrated, and that… I understand that's a little bit of a critique. From one architect to another designer. Totally understand that, yes, and they are, clear glass. And so, what would explain the deeper shadow in that… We'll call it the second story, far rightmost, which would be to. Meaning. Why is that third… the eastmost panel seem like it's a foot deeper than the rest of the plane of the tripart? institutions. W. Yeah, so there's essentially the way that we adjusted the, the sun in this diagram, was to… to catch the standing seam. Obviously, it's at kind of a raking angle.

[49:10] So that is a 3-panel slider, so all the doors essentially stack over to page right. And so essentially what you're seeing is the thickness of a door, each pane drops back, so that's a 3-panel slider that then stacks. So that's not a nanowall folding system, that's purely… there are 3 planes, and as they slide. one direction or another. It looks… do they slide to the middle? It's hard to say. They can slide… they can slide either direction and stack either direction, but… The intent is that they essentially would stack, page right, and they are different, you're right, than the nanowall system below, in that, the intent for the lower opening was that it opens completely, so that it has kind of the, kind of, that's the planned, kind of, pottery studio, slash gym that then

[50:02] Kind of connects with the lower patio, maybe, you know, cold plunge, this kind of wellness, retreat, in a way, whereas the upper level is a little more, residential, in its kind of ease of opening the door. Okay, perfect. I have 3 questions for Marcy. So, I'll… I don't know what order to bring this in, but I'll start with the mature tree… statement you made at the very beginning that could be potentially part of the criteria. I think I read that in one of your first slides. during your introduction. And I… I'm just wondering if, because the staff didn't make a comment about the loss of a mature tree for this project. from what I saw in the kind of recommendations, I wonder if you could maybe speak to that.

[51:05] Yeah, we acknowledge that a mature tree is being removed as part of this proposal, but didn't feel like, the preservation of the tree would eliminate the opportunity to put this building here. So, it was more that we recognized that a mature, site feature is being removed, but, didn't make, as you said, it didn't make it a condition to somehow save that tree. And… and so, thank you. I have two… two questions that are related to that. I mean, one could imagine that that tree… I mean, I did my own sort of alley review assessment that That tree currently would obstruct sightlines from properties north from the other side of the alley, and this addition proposed

[52:05] dwelling is… is actually shorter than the tree. It takes up less vertical obstruction than the tree. My… my point being that, and this is where I'm looking for some clarification about three things that… that… Pertain to our purview. So, one is… sightline obstructions from north of the alley. The section view that you presented that was cut through the site, it was a north-south section looking West. Showed kind of this dashed line of the… yeah, that one. Would have been really nice to sort of extend that, just to have an understanding of how the vertical Ridgeline may impact views, but this is related to a perceived overlap with planning and zoning, right? And so I'm looking for clarification about that relative to

[53:03] What our discussion… needs… may need guardrails regarding… the other is, do we have any… or is there any, definition of the usage of this ADU as… as an Airbnb, let's say, and I'm ignorant of those, municipal codes relative to that. But… but lastly, are there any parking requirements on the site for an addition of an ADU. As… as we're looking at. And again, whether the parking is part of our… kind of jurisdiction, if you will, and maybe those are questions for Chris. But prior to getting into public comment, I wanted to really understand if we are… if parking or usage of the ADU or sight lines from properties on the north side of the alley are part of our

[54:09] jurisdiction. or criteria. Sure. So, the sight lines from… well, sight lines just broadly are not part of your criteria, not part of the board's criteria. The design guidelines talk about visibility from the public right-of-way throughout the design guidelines when talking about the potential impact to the historic character of, say, the alleyway or the streetscape, but the… sightline from an adjacent property is not, part of the consideration. And then the second question understood would… is whether there's a off-street parking requirement, for the building, and so that is within the board's purview, in that it's a question of understanding what the full scope of

[55:05] the project is, if there is, you know, additional hardscaping, let's say, that would need to be proposed. But whether the… building itself is used as a pottery studio, a long-term rental, a short-term rental, etc, is not in your purview. And so, my understanding, and Matt, I would look to you to confirm this, is That there are no longer off-street parking requirements for, ADUs. Correct. And then, Yes, the owner has no intent to rent this out as an Airbnb. Obviously, you know, you can… That's up to just kind of, him, but the intent is this to be kind of an in-law suite for when his parents visit, when friends visit. Obviously, the lower studio is kind of a pottery workout studio. You know, very early iterations, we had looked at this as being kind of a garage from the back alley, but…

[56:08] You know, because we didn't want to disturb the alley, and wanted this kind of in-law unit in the back of the studio, kept the parking the front, from Mountain View. And I think this is actually a good diagram to show the 3-foot offset of the foundation from the alley as well, to speak to our, intent to kind of not have any disturbance to the utilities, or the alley by setting the building 3 feet off. This would implement the same shoring strategy that we used for the existing house, where essentially we're not going any further than 3 feet into the property line. So there would be still a nice little kind of vegetated buffer or swale between the building and Of the property line. Thank you.

[57:01] And I have a question for, Marcy or, Matt, and so, I do remember this, project coming across, for LDRC, but I wanted to ask a question. So, in… on page 5 of my, like, item 5A, which there's a picture, and it shows the front elevation of the front house. Do you have that on your… I don't think… I don't think we included that in our. Okay. Yeah. No, because this is taken on the site. Okay, so I'm… cause, oh, there it is! Is this what you meant? Yeah. The rendering. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, sorry, the rendering, from the view. So, here, the, the gable end that kind of is the new part on the right of the page, so east, yep, that is, that is also metal cladding,

[58:10] Correct. Yeah. Okay. And I think… Go ahead. That was a point that I didn't get to because I ran out of time, but the proposal for the ADU is the exact same cladding as was approved for the addition. Yeah, Renee, I… I think I'm seeing… sorry to jump in, but this… this is a rendering of the previously approved… this is not what we're looking at today. This is forward towards the street of that. Right. Maybe you understood that. Yeah, I… and I was just getting at, you know, like, staff's recommend, for the material, so I kind of wanted to see where, were coming from, so that was, you know, I was just asking the question that. Yeah. like…

[59:01] That's… yeah, and that's a good kind of observation that I forgot to bring up. Another reason we went with a standing seam metal, aside from all the other kind of precedent examples, was to kind of match the approved existing edition material. Okay. Again, limit the kind of pallet on site of the stone, the metal, and then the historic wood. Right, so then if we go to what is being asked, adjust materials, not, but that is the vertical… the vertical siding that matches that with no overhang, right? Bennett. the horizontal metal that is there. Now, is that… Is that metal detail, that siding been approved on the existing part of the house? And, you know, Marcy or Matt can answer this. Yeah, I think that has not. There is not a horizontal lap siding on the existing house. I think this was an attempt to break down the scale because it is on the alley, to give it a kind of more pedestrian and human scale. It is kind of almost a direct, relation to the 406… 406 Pearl Street.

[60:17] ADU, well, auxiliary building, that the wood… is kind of a similar… pretty much a very similar form, with a gable to a flat roof, or kind of a flat-sloped roof that changes orientation when it hits that breakpoint. So, this was kind of our attempt to… To kind of break down the scale of the mass, even though it's already a pretty small building in relation. And do you have any, just… I just want to ask, do you have any objections to… I mean, it sounds like you are… Well, I'm not going to speak for you. Do you have any objections to, discuss materials with LDRC?

[61:01] No. Okay. I think… oh. Any other questions? For our applicant. And, Alex and… I have a point, I'm sorry, Renee. Okay. I think we might have missed swearing that in, so we'll just do it retroactively. Matt, do you just… you swear that the testimony you gave in our giving is the truth? I do. There we go. Retroactively, yes. Yes, retroactively. It's not on my piece of paper, Chris. We're gonna fix that. Yeah. Thanks, Chris. I will, make sure… let's make sure it's on the next items. Swear in. Okay. Thanks, Matt. and Chelsea and Alex, like, my screen doesn't really show everyone, so, like, Michael and, Michael and John had their hands raised, so if…

[62:03] I missed you and your hand is raised. Please speak up and, don't be worried about being called on, so… just that little note in this virtual decorum meeting. So, let's now move to public comment. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand or press star 9. If you'd like to speak to this item, Mariah will announce if anyone has identified. And we will swear you in. Alright, I've got, Lynn Siegel up first. Lynn, please… Sorry, state your name, and swear to tell the truth, and you'll have 3 minutes. Thanks, Lynn. Thanks, Mariah. Lynn Siegel, I swore to tell the truth the best as I know it. I can't… I don't have a monopoly on the truth. But this…

[63:04] I don't have much to say. I don't… I'm not, impressed with the visual appearance. It's very sterile, it's very industrial looking, and that doesn't… and I know this house is really neat. And the back part of it is really neat, but, I'm just not interested in this back alley, part of it at all. And I've watched the previous… Meetings about it. Done. Thanks, Lynn. No personal offense. Mariah, do we have anyone else? I'm not seeing anyone else. Great. Oh, sorry, Nope, don't want, sorry.

[64:00] Okay, great. The applicant, Matt. Sorry, I just want to clarify that, that the owner does have their hand raised, and so while the applicant… well, Matt spoke during the applicant presentation, Jerry, you do have a chance to speak during this applicant, rebuttal portion. And just to go back to Chris, do we need to… oh. Yes, the applicant will have to swear to tell the truth, so… Jerry, will you swear to tell the truth? Please state your full name, and you'll have 3 minutes. I do. Full name is Jerry McNamara. Thank you, everyone, for the time. I think, exciting time for me, as this has been, you know, almost 3 years in the making, as we've navigated the initial discussions and design process and approvals.

[65:04] I think some points of clarification, you know, as it related to the landscaping, you know, one of the things that's really special about this property is, you know, kind of the secluded setback nature of the house, the current or original house. and the lush landscaping around it. You know, it was… it was always my intent to try and keep as many trees on that property as… as possible. there were two that we ultimately had to take down, because as we dug into the foundation, you know, or dug in to excavate the basement and the garage, they started to turn brown. And so my intent is to replant, and While this tree in the back is a beautiful tree, you know, the limitations from the design and the setback, limitations have really prompted the building to be smaller than what I think the buildings around it have been. when I look at, you know, building a family, expanding a family, and having enough space to, you know, have, you know, multiple children in the house, and, you know, parents or in-laws that are able to.

[66:10] to join and support, you know, whether short-term or longer-term. You know, the hope is that there's the ability to put this short-term kind of office, gym, you know, workspace in the back that can then transition as a family expands into a place where in-laws would be comfortable. And unfortunately, that would necessitate the removal of that tree, but… The thought is, we'll replace More than what was removed on both the east and west side as… as we plant, around the current addition that's under construction. So, and then I appreciate the questions on the materials. You know, I think… We have really tried to make something that is clearly new, and is a modern complement or interpretation of, you know, the existing historic structure and those around it, and that is ultimately what led to

[67:04] you know, the metal material choices on the ADU to complement the new gabled structure, Renee, that you called out, you know, in the initial rendering. But as Matt said, ultimately. you know, trying to build a house that I can, you know, build and grow a family in, and if the material choices are a limitation, that's absolutely something that I'm up for discussing. I don't want that to be something that prevents this from, you know, being able to be constructed, so… But thank you guys, appreciate it all. Happy to answer questions directly as well, if there's anything aimed at myself. Thanks. Period. do, marci, are we…

[68:00] It's like… won an award. I feel honored. Thank you, thank you. You won the award by not… keep going. So, Marcy, are we able to, at this point, should we go into board discussions, or if someone has questions for the owner, can we ask questions? I would say now's your last call for questions for staff, the applicant, or the owner, and then, once… those questions are done, done, then we'll, move Matt and Jerry back down to attendees, and then we'll go off camera, and you all will, deliberate. Okay. So, does, anyone have any more questions? For our applicant or owner. I don't see anybody raising their hand, so… I will assume no. And, now we can move on to board discussions. And I ask that everyone else please mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We estimate 45 minutes

[69:12] for the discussion. Does anybody want to start to lead it? I can… Is it possible, before we go, Marci, can you… can you share your screen that showed the recommendations? Are you allowed to do that? the list? Yes, and, I also, can share this board deliberation, which is the criteria for your review, But I can also come to this… List of conditions, and then the recommended motion is the slide before. And then… This… this is perfect. Okay, great. Yeah, we would… we would have to have those anyway when we get to the point of emotion.

[70:04] If we do. Just to jump in there, This is an interesting project. On a number of levels. The… the area… specific area that we're considering tonight is the… L-shaped addition on the very back of the property. or on the alley side of the property. However. I think that this is one where you have to look at the whole of the project that's being formed here. And… And… let it inform, or… or not drive, but inform how you review the new piece that is being reviewed tonight. I think that… I think that the things that were discussed, I'm… the first thing I'm gonna…

[71:02] say is that I'm impressed with the explanation of the loss of the tree and the resultant landscaping. If there were a tree law in place in Boulder that was like, say, Fort Collins's. The loss of a tree would involve Assessing a value to the mature tree, which is either then put into the new project's landscaping, or is put in to escrow to be used elsewhere in the city. And the answer that was given by the applicant as to what What the loss of the tree allowed them to do, or at least What… what the loss of the tree was… Was going to be compensated by, which is the creation of this this more, I guess, developed and verdant landscape, in addition to this kind of kind of…

[72:03] sunken oasis zone, which could be a very interesting place. in… in the kind of internal realm that's being created here. I think that was a very appropriate answer in the context of… of… The absence of a tree law here. I think that… I… I also buy the explanation on the… on the choice of the metal. The standing seam metal as appropriate as a kind of break with history, or at least not attempting to recreate a false history or a false narrative in this, and to use a material that is more contemporary, and in fact is More, combustion safe, In an environment which is increasingly getting combustible on the edges, which was demonstrated last night above 4th Street. And I…

[73:11] I kind of like… Some of the other things that are being done compositionally in… in kind of playing with… or the interplay of materials, I… I like the horizontal versus the vertical everywhere else on that piece of the building, which I think is the oldest part of it. Isn't there some incorporation of a historic fragment here, Marcy? was… Or is it all completely new? Oops, sorry. The, project does include incorporation of that 8… 19… That little shed. stone… Right. Yeah. Yeah, so I think that… I think that it's a way of delineating that.

[74:01] As… as a significant piece of it. So, overall, I think that I… I completely agree with the, with the recommendation, staff's recommendation, and I also… Agree with the conditions. the argument on the height of the door, I think that an 8-foot door is somewhat, as an operable portion of the door, is a little out of character with what would normally be on an accessory building of this type, although I am willing, at least in… again, in the context of everything else that's happening here, Entertain the notion of a light above the door, a fixed light above it, or additional transparency on that wall.

[75:01] And then reducing the height of the door to more traditional, like, 7-foot realm. So, that's my… kind of… Comment on the thing. John, can I ask you. For a clarification, when you said you agreed with the staff recommendation, it sounded like you were… you're supporting the use of the metal siding. I am. Yesterday, I was… They are not. Okay, well, I didn't hear that in their recommendation. It's on the screen. I actually… I actually support the use of the metal siding. And as I said, my… my argument was In consistency with the guidelines. It is… a form, or the way it is being shown, it has…

[76:07] kind of the graphic form of a more traditional board and batten type siding, but it has… the… Connection to the time that it's being applied in. And it also, as I said, it offers one more level of resilience To the building, particularly in the face of… of wildfire. So… That would be my… my argument for supporting that. But otherwise, I support Staff's recommendation overall. To approve this with some… Modification of the conditions. Thanks, Michael.

[77:07] I'll go, and I'll try to keep it brief. I'm with John in… in that, I… I can appreciate the metal siding. Renee, I thought it was brilliant that you asked to look at that. rendering, and I'm sorry for trying to correct what you were looking at when you knew what you were looking at. I… I think for… consistency's sake, which is, I think, where you're going, I think the metal siding is appropriate, in that it extends an established language on that previous previously approved, portion of the project, so I… I… I actually really like the metal. And John, I agree with you about… Perhaps… and I don't have that much of a problem with an 8-foot door, but I think a transom

[78:02] panel, could… could solve that problem if… if that's… if the human scale… I mean, I'm… I'm about 10-foot doors, so, you know, 8-foot is… is fine by me. I do have a little bit of an issue with the fence line, and we didn't talk about that in great detail, but it seemed relatively opaque, and I believe what staff was… was driving at was some degree of… of, you know, transparency with, iron fencing that would be more appropriate on the alley side, is what I heard, so I'm supportive of, of that, recommended condition, but… but otherwise, I… I… I would strike I think A that we're seeing on the screen right now, has to do with the metal siding, so I would strike that from our recommendations. I would…

[79:04] change the language of B, and then C, I would, specifically discuss the railing, or maybe that's D, sorry, the fencing. So I don't know what C is, relatively speaking, but… but I would, I do… I am in agreement with D. Those are my thoughts. Thanks, Michael. And John, Alex, or Chelsea? Sure, yeah, I'm happy to jump in. Well, one, this is a beautiful project. I am really jealous of the applicant who gets to live here. It looks like it's going to be a wonderful place to be, and I think any, any, additional development of the site that allows for and promotes multi-generational living and housing and just visits, I think is really good for the community, and for the owner, so I… I think that's a great

[80:11] asset to have, and I was glad that my colleagues have already raised, that they agree that the metal… I personally really liked the metal siding. I think it added a really nice dimension to the project, while still fitting in with, the main house, and so I would also remove A, and I don't have a problem with the door being the size that it was. So I would also remove B from the conditions. Thanks, Chelsea. Alex, you wanna have your first… Conversation?

[81:01] Yeah, first I was a little disappointed to see about the loss of tree, but it sounds like there's a strategy that will replace whatever caliper of tree is being lost with with trees in the future, so that was, good to hear. I think it… the overall plan, very strategically, sort of tucks away… uses the… the elevation change across the site, and… tucks away a lot of the mass of this structure in a way that's nice, where from the alley, the impression is rather small, and I like the use of sort of vertical members on part of it and horizontal on the other, because that kind of further subdivides The scale of it. I agree with others that I'd be fine with… with metal siding, and then with regard to the door, especially because it's not a public-facing door, that really didn't bother me, so… I would be fine striking that, or, as was suggested earlier, a 1-foot window on top of a 7-foot door, so that it provides the same amount of lighting.

[82:02] That shrinks the door, I'd be in support of that as well. Great. Thanks, Alex. So, I guess I'll hit my points on this project. So, sad, always sad about a tree coming down, but, you know, I think that, That it… he's doing a good job of, you know, planting and re, putting in different situations, and, you know, this is a great spot to put in and grow the family, which I think is important in our downtown area. And a historic area, and you're doing a great job of, you know, rebuilding the site and making it a really great place, and I think that the… the addition to the main house is a really neat, piece, too. So for me, this, it's not the metal, vertical piece that I… like, the siding doesn't bug me as much as… like, I don't know if…

[83:08] the gable form, it feels more squatty than what was given in the very… in the beginning. So, like, I feel like, on the front side, it's a little bit more pitched, and I can't, you know, it's maybe a proportion, and maybe we're looking at these… scale, but, I thought that the original… so, for me, it's just, like, almost the mass of this building, and then what bugs me more about the material is the form of this a horizontal siding, and flat roof, which creates, I think. a non-traditional form. So, And I think that, like, if we could put a traditional material on the non-traditional form, it could maybe, like, marry the two, right? So we have this traditional form with a non-traditional material on there, and so, and then this, like, box

[84:10] has, you know, a horizontal metal, which I don't think is anywhere else on the site. Like, when I look at it, there's, like, horizontal wood. If I'm looking at, like, some of the pictures from Google, there's, like, a horizontal piece But I can't really tell if they're putting horizontal wood, and maybe Marcy can jump in on that, but, it seems like the existing house has some horizontal wood, and is that… Are we keeping it, or are we changing it and making it fire protective? So maybe the suggestion of, like. Taking the material from an already approved area from the front of the house, which is the metal vertical piece on a traditional form, and then the non-traditional form, if we could, bring in another piece and not introduce

[85:08] a non-traditional metal siding is kind of how I feel about it, because it's… And… you know, walking down alleyway, I think that that, to me, feels more encroaching, is just the forms of those buildings. And not too big, I don't mind the 8-foot door, I think it's kind of cool, but at the same time, I think that you could, easily… and… Something that maybe the homeowner would want to think about is, like, if you could put, like, a old-time awning window above it, and then you could have it open, and when you're working a workout studio or a pottery shed is something I heard there was talking of. So, that would be kind of neat. It's, like, some of the windows, that… because that's your… because you're so close to the other sides, I don't know if those,

[86:00] If you're gonna get to open those windows 3 feet, I think you can have them. But the point is, is, like, on that side, if you had a little awning above it, you could, create that human scale, and then allow for a little awning window above it, and get some air within that upper area, maybe, on that side. So, I know on the… more on the south side, you have some really big… those big folding doors, so you'll get air that way, I suppose, but That was my two cents about the material, and I also, like, I think that the staff recommendations We want to be careful with them so that we're not… You know, creating this modern situation in our historic, of alleyways, I do… I'm… I think that there's a traditional form in here, and so I feel like it's approvable, but, I just kind of want to… by stating those… my feelings on the material, does anyone

[87:13] Anyone think otherwise? Like, did I change anyone's opinion? No. No, sorry. Oh. Okay. I… one… if… if… my understanding, Renee, is… is that the piece that has the horizontal siding on it is The historic fragment. And that is… a horizontal type. I… I… I didn't ask, but… I assume that that… that horizontal siding, it's… it's either… is it wood, or is it going to be cementitious material, like hardy plank?

[88:08] I think it's metal again. So, let's see if I can find it quickly. And Marcie, can you chime in if it's… Cause I thought… Product me on that. I thought the other building was on the… opposite side, the old building he's speaking of, but I could be wrong. The proposed materiality on the new accessory building is metal, vertical on the gable portion and horizontal on the kind of flat roof. portion. Okay, so… so the horizontal is metal also? Okay. And then, Mar… Marci, will you, chime in to John's question about that…

[89:03] The flat roof is representation of the historic, accessory building that was there. Is that what you're saying, John? That was my understanding at one point. No, I believe the, form is referencing a historic building on another property at 406 Pearl that has a similar gable roof with this kind of shallow-pitched, almost flat roof addition on the side. Okay, well, I was incorrect on that. Could you go to an elevation that shows that Holly? And… and what do you… what is the slope of the roof on the… I can't read that… on the shed? quarter inch. Yeah, it's a very low slope roof. So… so that… I mean, this is my technical side coming out, but I… that's not warrantyable with a metal roof. So what is the roof over the… the shed?

[90:09] Is it metal? Do we understand it to be metal? That might be a question for the applicant, or something that gets worked out in the LDRC, if that's where the board is heading. Yeah, that's… that would have to be a TPO or other type of membrane roof, ideally. Which, again, I mean, you're… coping on it. you're never gonna see it. Yeah. Like you would… like you would the… the steeper pitch. Right. Which I assume is metal because of the… photograph here. Yeah. I was just, trying to go to the forms of the existing house and seeing, Marcy, did the… I… Renee, sorry, if we can just… maybe I'm just gonna suggest for… for the sake of… of your…

[91:07] Your concern about the pitch of the roof that you were seeing that was on the previously approved… I don't know if that's an addition, I don't know what to call that, but it's much steeper, right? I… I… I'll just give you my personal take on that is, I think a shallower pitch is in deference to this deep pitch, in a way, that it's a building set in the back of the lot, And it's… it's… you know, there's a hodgepodge from the historic building, the existing… the earliest building on the site, of roof forms on that back side, the alley side. And I… I… I don't… I mean, my personal opinion is that the slopes don't need to match, if that's where you were headed.

[92:06] Yeah, no, I mean. Like, if you look at this… This picture right here, see the old part? Like, if… Yeah, yeah. But I don't think that old part translates on the back side. Remember how cobbled together the backside of that historic… when we were reviewing this for the window replacement. The backside of the… of the historic house is… Yeah. I mean, it's… Yeah. It's pretty muddled. Okay. Well, I think the shape and the, everything is approvable. I guess I just have… my opinion on it is the horizontal metal siding, I would choose to have a different… Appropriate material there. Sorry, Marci, can you… hey, can you go back to that alley elevation?

[93:00] I, I just… I kinda wanna see what… Yeah, I mean, I sort of… I sort of agree. I don't know why you would… why that couldn't just be the vertical… metal siding. I mean, the roof and the form are distinctive enough, personally. Yeah, I mean, I think it's more of an opinion rather than, we're making a, the guidelines being that way, because if we're gonna go with the… vertical, and, you know, the horizontal. I just was thinking… I mean, there's… opposite of this building is another building that has horizontal, you know, I don't know, if it's a cementitious, or if it's wood, but it's a painted, you know, over on the exact opposite side. So, I think that the… the scale of the, the door,

[94:04] I mean, you're gonna… it's gonna be hidden by that fence. So, alright, well… If I may, in the interest of time, because we do have a long agenda this evening, I've, drafted some potential conditions, based on what I've heard. the board. or say, and the board in the past has framed conditions as explore something, which is not binding, but could provide you all a chance to work out these details at the LDRC. level, and so the first one might read, Explore Revisions to the horizontal metal siding materiality of the flat roof portion to reflect materiality of the house in addition. Feel free to edit that. Explore adding an awning window on the north elevation, that's something I heard Renee say, but would…

[95:03] leave it up to the board if there's a majority that supports that. Revise the design of a person door on the west elevation to a traditionally sized door with a transom window above. And then the following two conditions are about detailing, for both the building and the fencing. And I was thinking that the B and the C were kind of one and the same. Like, I wasn't… like, the awning window on the north side wasn't… that, I would scratch the B. I was saying more like an awning as a transom on the door to a typically sized door with an awning above it, so you could… and the transom just moved. Like a old… so, that was… It was on the west side, not on the north side, so… Thank you. I… I like that. I like changing it to explore. Because I think that… With… with a little exploration.

[96:04] I… I think I understand the compositional intent of changing that section to horizontal, and I like what it… what Was intended there, but maybe it isn't the right material. Yeah, and I mean, I don't… I explored just makes it be an, I like how, Marcy brought it up, so… I mean, it's not a condition that they have to do, they could, totally ixnay it, so I think that kind of fits with most of the board members. agreement with it. So, I mean, I'm okay getting rid of it, I'm also… they've kind of heard me, so, they're willing to change it. If they did change it, Marci, do they have to come back and ask, or is it good to put Explore in it? Because if they did change it.

[97:00] It would be okay. they could change it. The design that, The board approves is based on the, plans that are dated in the packet, and so any changes from this point on really should be in the conditions. But the LDRC does have the ability to look at changes, and as you know, sometimes the design changes more than what's just in the condition, and then the DRC has to decide whether that new design or revised design is within the same intent as the board's approval. Okay, so, I mean, it gives them a little bit of flexibility to not have to come back if it's… if they do decide to change it, so… Correct. We can leave it in there with more flexibility for the client, and if they wish to keep it, they can keep it, and… Then the LDRC can take it forward. So, let's make a motion.

[98:01] I can make a motion. Great, John. Thank you. Okay, I see motion language. I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated April 8, 2026, as the findings of the board, and conditionally approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to construct a new approximately 800 square foot accessory building at 409 Mountain View Road. a non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and is consistent with the general design guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met. And then I guess I should read the conditions into the record.

[99:04] The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Prior to submitting a building permit application and the final issuance of the landmark alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following. which shall be subject to final review and approval by the LDRC to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District guidelines and the intent of this approval. A, explore revisions to horizontal metal siding, materiality of flat roof portion to reflect materiality of house and addition. B, revised design of person door on the west elevation to a traditionally sized door with a transom window above.

[100:05] C, provide details of lighting locations, guttering, materiality of the railing, pathway and hardscaping, steps and alley apron, and fence, including details of type, material, and color proposed. Materiality of pathway and hardscaping, steps, and driveway aprons should demonstrate permeability and compatibility in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. And D, provide details of fencing proposed, including non-combustible material within 8 feet of a structure, height, style, spacing, and finish. And there you have it. Do we have second? Second. Michael seconds the motion. let's do a roll call vote. John?

[101:02] Aye. Chelsea. Bye. Alex. Bye. Michael. Aye. And I vote aye. Motion passes. Unanimously. Marci, can you go over the next steps in the process? Yes. So, the LEC has been, conditionally approved, so that means it goes to City Council for their opportunity to call up the decision. We have that date as May… 7th. It says the City Council usually has 16 days to decide, to review or call up the decision. However, based on their meeting schedule, we need to extend this to the regular council meeting. Which isn't until May 7th. At that point, if they do not call up the application. the conditions of approval will be reviewed by the LDRC. Once the conditions are satisfied, the LAC will be issued, and that LAC is valid for a year.

[102:05] If, the decision is called up by City Council, then we'll schedule a hearing within 45 days. Thank you. Great. We'll move on to the second public hearing. This is a public hearing in consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to relocate a building, Chestnut House, at 2106 Arapahoe Avenue, HIS20260045. A pending individual landmark pursuant to Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, BRC 1981. The owner is Naropa University, and the applicant is Sophras Barn Architects, represented by Kathleen Adams.

[103:04] I'll hand it over for Claire for the staff presentation. Thank you, Renee. Okay, so this is also a quasi-judicial hearing, so all speaking to the item will be sworn in, don't forget. That includes me, Claire Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. And I'll pause to allow board members to also note any ex parte contacts. Okay, hearing none, the process we're going to go through today is the same as for 5A. It includes the staff presentation, a 10-minute applicant presentation, a public comment period, and the board may ask questions, and the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to anything that was said. Once the board begins to deliberate, we'll ask everyone to mute their computers, and a motion will require an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass.

[104:04] The criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-1118B and C, and this is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property, does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. The architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. And the options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application, subject to a 16-day, 60 Council call-up period, where, Council can choose to review the decision. The Landmarks Board can also deny the application, which would be subject to a 30-day period in which City Council could review the decision, which is the applicant's appeals process.

[105:03] Denial would mean the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months. So, if the board is headed in that direction, we'll give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw. So, for this one, Planning Board is currently reviewing a proposal for a redevelopment of the Naropa campus site. The proposal includes incorporating two buildings identified by staff as eligible for landmark designation into the redevelopment. The typical process when there are eligible buildings on a site is to incorporate them Into the redevelopment proposal, and then submit a designation application, which is usually held until the site review process by Planning Board is complete. As the, proposal for the redevelopment includes relocating buildings on-site, the relocation needs to be reviewed by the Landmarks Board. Relocation is defined by code as requiring full Landmarks Board review, and that's what the Landmarks Board is reviewing today.

[106:12] Here's the property. It's located on the south side of Arapahoe Avenue between 21st and 22nd Streets. It's within the potential Goss Grove historic district. A portion of the historic Smith and Goss Ditch crosses the property in an open concrete channel. And here's the site. It includes the Lincoln School, which is a designated individual landmark. That's the building at the center here. There are two buildings proposed to be relocated. We're reviewing them separately today as two separate LACs, but it's, I think it's helpful to orient using both buildings. The subject building, let me find my… Pointer! Seems we're virtual, hooray. The subject building, this is currently known as the Chestnut House. It faces north onto Arapahoe Avenue, on the east side of this, this private driveway here. Arapahoe House, which is here, is the subject of item 5C.

[107:14] And it's on the other side, it's on the west side of the private drive. So both houses are located west of the Lincoln School, which is this building right here. But they're outside of the designation boundary, which is, this line you can see, kind of, there. Hopefully you can see it. There's a number of mature trees on the property, including some identified champion trees. There's one at the, at the east. at the southwest corner of the Lincoln School building, and, there's one to the northwest of the subject building. Sorry, this is just a mature tree, right here, not a champion tree.

[108:00] These trees are proposed to remain, however, there is a cluster of trees at the northwest corner of the site, right here, that are proposed to be removed for the relocation of the buildings. The Chestnut House is the smaller of the two houses. It was constructed in 1897. It's a frame house with a front-facing gable roof with overhanging eaves, a pair of gable dormers on the west side of the roof, and a central brook chimney. The walls are clad with shiplap siding, with wood shingles in the gable ends. The windows are paired at the east and west side, and are predominantly vertically oriented and double-hung. The porch has a somewhat unusual projecting shed roof with a gable at the peak and includes spindle supports and a plain freeze. The house… this house was surveyed in 1995, and found to be historically significant as a well-preserved example

[109:02] of a vernacular-style dwelling with Queen Anne elements, erected and bouldered during the early 20th century, as reflected in the gabled roof, shiplap siding, and porch with gable and spindles. Staff analysis includes key site and setting characteristics, mass and scale and key building elements, and the materials and detailing. So we'll start with the key site and setting characteristics. This includes setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. The house is proposed to be relocated from here to here, approximately 100 feet west. It will, sit approximately 7 feet. From the west property boundary, shared with, 2034 Arapahoe, that's, this boundary here. It's proposed to be rotated 90 degrees from its current orientation.

[110:01] To, to face a shared campus walk, which is right here. The rear porch is proposed to be removed, and the building will be raised on a concrete foundation to meet floodplain requirement. And include a ramp for accessibility. So the house will be approximately 50 feet from Arapaho Avenue, but it will be minimally visible due to the proposed relocation of the Arapaho house, which will be here. The guidelines say to locate buildings within the range of alignments seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side, and rear of the property, and to orient the primary building entrance to the street. In addition, the National Park Service provides the following guidance for relocation of historic buildings. Which say to consider the adjacent structures and the site so as not to inadvertently destroy or adversely affect the historical, cultural, or archaeological significance of that site.

[111:07] And that the relocated structure must adapt harmoniously to its new location if it is not to appear awkward or out of place. Staff finds that while the building is proposed to be relocated from its traditional alignment facing Arapahoe Avenue, the proposed new orientation respects traditional orientation towards the private drive, and will not appear awkward or out of place. The proposal maintains the traditional setbacks along the private drive at the front, side, and rear of the property. Overall, staff finds that the proposed relocation does not detract from the overall historic character of the site. And does not require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature. It does not inadvertently destroy or adversely affect the historical, cultural, or architectural significance of the site, as Lincoln School and the historic Smith-Goss Ditch will not be impacted by the relocation.

[112:08] We grouped the analysis for mass and scale, including height, form, and key building elements, including dormers, windows, and doors. The existing porch and non-historic wood ramp at the rear are proposed to be removed, and the house rotated 90 degrees as part of the relocation. The house will be lifted from its existing rubble foundation and placed on a new concrete foundation. The foundation will raise the finished floor height to the required flood protection elevation, which is 2 feet above the base flood elevation. New stairs will be added to the side of the existing front porch to accommodate the new height. And the house will be surrounded by a concrete walkway that becomes a ramp near the rear of the building to allow access at the rear corner.

[113:03] The existing door at the rear will be relocated to the adjacent corner, from the rear to the side of the house. And this shows the relocated door, and end of the access ramp. The guidelines note that original porches should be preserved and should be repaired or replaced so that the character of the porch is not compromised. Maintain the height, detail, and spacing of the original balustrade if replacing, extending, or adding balustrades, and whenever possible, retain and preserve all original doors and door openings. But in general, the more important the elevation, the less likely the replacement of a historic door will be appropriate. Maintain the dominant roofline and orientation of the roof form to the street. We looked at plans, from 1918, up to 1950, and they, show an open porch at the rear of the house that was likely original or a very early edition.

[114:09] However, staff finds that the removal of the existing rear porch for the addition of the access ramp is appropriate in this case. It's not a significant feature of the house, and it has not been documented other than in plan. So the removal of the rear porch does not impact the historic integrity or significance of the building. Staff also finds the new concrete foundation to raise the finished floor height to the required flood protection elevation appropriate for life safety purposes. And the addition of stairs and the railing at the front of the porch do not compromise the character of the porch, as the height, detail, and spacing will generally match. The relocation of the door at the rear to a secondary elevation is appropriate, as the door is proposed to be relocated at the rear corner of the building with minimal visibility.

[115:00] Additionally, this new location for the door appears to have been modified at some point with the addition of a newer horizontal sliding window. So due to these factors, staff considers the relocation of the door will not impact the historic integrity or significance of the building. The proposed ramp, while clearly contemporary, is appropriately placed at the rear of the building. Analysis of the materials and details includes the scale, proportion, texture, type, and finish. New stairs and railing are proposed to be added to the existing front porch to accommodate the new height of the porch. The stairs and railing are proposed to be constructed of wood and painted. The area of siding from the relocated door at the rear is proposed to be patched with wood siding to match. The house is proposed to be painted, and the access ramp at the rear is proposed to be unpainted concrete and include a black metal handrail.

[116:00] The guidelines note that original historic finished material should be preserved and repaired. The new finished materials should be compatible with, but not seek to replicate, original finished materials. Use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. When repainting, select paint colors appropriate to the historic building. When possible, recreate historic paint schemes based on samples of original materials. And it is inappropriate to introduce or eliminate exterior, Lighting fixtures, if doing so, will detract from the overall historic character of the building, site, or streetscape. And lighting should be functional, not just decorative. So staff considers that the proposed new painted wood stair and railing at the front porch are appropriate for safety reasons. The proposed materials are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. Additional handrails for the stairs that meet accessibility requirements should be added as needed, but should not detract from the overall historic character of the building.

[117:08] Staff considers the proposed colours appropriate to the features of a Queen Anne house. The access ramp at the rear is proposed to be unpainted concrete and include a black metal handrail, and staff considers that the black metal handrail may be inappropriate, but safety is a priority for the handrail. An applicant should consider a lighter color if allowed under the appropriate permitting. New lighting was not included in the application, but functional lighting fixtures should be added. As needed, but should not detract from the overall historic character of the building, the site, or streetscape. Staff found the proposed relocation of the building to be appropriate, in that it does not impact the historic integrity or significance of the building. It does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the historic building, as it does not obscure or remove character-defining features, respects the orientation of houses seen traditionally in the area, maintains traditional setbacks, and does not detract from the overall historic character of the site.

[118:16] Does not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the proposed individually landmark building. Proposed changes to the building do not impact the historic integrity or significance of the building, and do not compromise the character of the building or the site. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials proposed are generally compatible with the character of the proposed landmark, in that they are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. Staff recommends the Landmark Board adopt the findings, And that the project will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, and approve the application.

[119:03] That's the end of the staff presentation. As a reminder, the next steps in the process, the applicant has up to 10 minutes to present to the board, followed by public participation. An opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then board deliberation. And a reminder that the criteria for your decision this evening is found in 9-11-18, and considers whether the project meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. And the options in front of you this evening are to either approve the LAC application to relocate the building, approve with conditions, or deny the application if you believe it does not meet these standards. So, did you have any questions? Could you… could you just go back to the slide that shows the elevation of the front porch and the ramp? I think it showed the… Doesn't it? I presume there's a dimension somewhere.

[120:11] above grade. Is it on this one? There you go. Yep. No. I don't know what building low point means. I'm looking… I'm looking for the height of the… what would be the main floor, that 100-foot… Above grade, and maybe that's something the applicant can address in their presentation. That's definitely a question for the applicant. Anyone have an easy question?

[121:02] Alright. Renee, shall we move on to the applicant's presentation? We… Yeah, since there's no additional questions. Let's see… Let's go ahead and get, Kathleen Adams for the applicant presentation, and Kathleen, will you… Raise your hand and swear to tell the board the whole truth, state your full name, and proceed. Blue. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Right? I'll keep this short, but, good evening. I am Kathleen Adams, I go by Kate. With Sober Spurn Architects, and I'm here representing the applicant team. As Marcy said, we've been working on this project with them…

[122:01] Can you swear to tell the truth? I swear to tell the truth. Yes. Thank you. Do I have to, like, do the Girl Scout salute? Okay, no, We've been working, with the Landmark staff from Concept Review, and actually a little bit before, just understanding that this site has several different historic components to it that are important. So we've been trying to see How we can design the site to accommodate the needs of the new development, but also, preserve and restore the important elements on the site. So… I don't have a separate presentation because, the staff memo was actually pretty thorough in, explaining our goals for this, so I am here and happy to answer any questions. I guess Michael's the one with the question about Elevation.

[123:02] Did you… yeah, did you hear the question I asked? So are you asking, I can… so the rule is, is that the, the finished floor has to be raised 2 feet above the base flood elevation, and we're still… I have to say, because we're in the site review process, that grade that is along those buildings is a little bit. fluffy. Still, the, maximum that you'd see from the finish… the new finished grade that's there would be 2 feet. Say that again. The max… so, we're… we're working on developing that grade that's. It's two… I gotcha, it's two feet. It has to be… it has to be… well, it has to be 2 feet above the, Base flood elevation. So, but we are changing the grade a little bit along that site, so it may not… like, you can see in the, the chestnut house here, the front right there, that one's not quite 2 feet above, it's… I think it's a little bit under, and it… because it depends on where we're…

[124:08] actually raising that grade for that walk. So it's… it's a little bit in flux, but the max That it will be, will be 2 feet. Well, then the follow-up question is whether or not, because of the function of these houses. Whether the residential building code applies, or The overall commercial code. Good, good question, and . you know where I'm going. I do know where you're going. Yep, I do, exactly. So, these houses are not… currently being proposed, but this could change, because we're in the process of site review right now, it's not… nothing's finalized. They're not currently being proposed to be residential structures, they're being proposed to be part of the operations. But we want to make sure that we're accounting for any future uses. Well, that… that… where I was going is if residential use… I mean, I just hate to see a 42-inch guardrail when it's not required by the residential code.

[125:10] Right, so if it was residential, that could be lowered to 3 feet, and I think it would be less, sort of, overbearing, particularly along the ramp. It seems like a really long ramp. Is there any way to… have you looked at… so I'll put this in the form of a question, but have you looked at trying to… like, a reduced slope that doesn't require… I mean, ultimately, at the end of the day, if you're only 2 feet above the grade, really the guardrail is not required. I think it's 30 inches that drives that requirement. You're correct, but if it's an accessible ramp, it has to have the, handrail. They're handrails, for sure. I'm just questioning the 42-inch height, really, at the end of the day. And I think, to answer your question a little bit better there, is…

[126:03] Along various points of that, ramp and that raised portion in the back, it may actually be 30 inches above grade. Right at the front, it might not be quite 30 inches. And I can give you a specific example as the… Makes sense. It's close to the creek. Exactly. Yeah, so, and I would say that if we, in our finalization of… in the grading, if we find that we don't need a 42-inch hand, guardrail there, then we are completely open to lowering that height. That would just be code-driven. Right on. Yup. Sorry to beat around the bush to get to that point, but… Right. That's my question. Great. Any more questions? From staff? Or, I mean, not staff, from the board? Okay, let's move to public comment.

[127:00] Virtual attendees, please raise your hand or press star 9 if you'd like to speak, Mariah will announce and Will you please… Raise your hand as were to tell the board the whole truth, state your full name, and proceed, and you will have 3 minutes. Awesome, looks like we have M. Bishop. When you get on, please make sure to say your full name so we can update it in the record, and then second, we'll have, Tim Glass. Okay, we've got 3 minutes. M. Bishop, are you… Able to speak? Sorry, I had a glitch there. Mine? Don't worry. My name is Michelle, with one L, Bishop. I swear to tell that what I'm saying is the truth, as far as I know.

[128:05] I live across the street from this project in the Goss Grove neighborhood. In fact, I'm co-chair of the Goss Grove Neighborhood Association, which celebrated its 50th year in existence last year. And, we worked with this developer on the Liquor Mart project. Several years ago when that was going on. So, we have not, as a group. looked through this as yet, although it's passed around the neighborhood. We haven't had a discussion, so what you're going to hear is what I think. I would like, ideally, to have both of those homes addressing Arapaho as they have. which would relate them to the ditch in front of them, and the Lincoln School. But I understand there's a space issue, so… I think…

[129:02] Moving them together to the western edge of the property, and even the rotation of the one property towards a public Walkway, so to speak. seems to be a reasonable way to address this. I also want to compliment, the architects and the developers. for… Their interest in preserving the historic nature of these two buildings. And relating them to the rest of the neighborhood across the street. Moving forward, and… Hopefully, we'll have more discussions with them as we go on, and be able to Provide some insight, being… Neighbors to the north, and living in small little homes of that vintage, too. Thank you.

[130:02] Thanks, Michelle. Mariah, do we have additional? Public comment? Next we have Tim Plass. And Tim, will you please, raise your hand and swear to tell the board the whole truth, and state your full name, and proceed with 3 minutes. My name is Tim Plass, Executive Director of Historic Boulder, and I swear to tell the whole truth. Thank you. Sure. And I will say I'm speaking for myself tonight, because this meeting's a little out of cycle with the usual Landmarks Board meeting, and how we schedule our meetings, so the board hasn't had a chance to weigh in. But I am asking you to support the staff recommendation tonight. But what I really wanted to do was say thank you to Adrian and to Kate, and the development team, for… for preserving these two, frame structures, you know, very different from the situation that we faced with the Presbyterian Manor.

[131:03] And I just say thank you for that to Kate and Adrian. I know you can't see me, but I can see you, so… so thank you. And, in June of last year, we actually had a great meeting with Kate and Adrian and the team, and we had a dialogue about the site and the historic resources. And I think that the resolution that we're seeing tonight with this house and the Arapaho House is a happy resolution for the historic resources. And included with that is the… the, the viewshed that will be preserved for the Lincoln School. So, I'm really pleased with that, and I know we haven't talked about the larger development on the site, just because that's not part of what we're doing tonight, and it's at site review. We're going to see a lot of density on the site, but I'm really pleased that these historic resources will be preserved. So, I urge you to, to support the staff recommendation.

[132:04] And thanks again to the development team. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Anyone else wanting to speak, please raise your hand. Okay, we've got, Lynn Siegel. Alright, Lynn, whenever you're ready. Lynn, state your full name and swear to tell. Lynn Siegel, I swear… To tell the truth to the best of my knowledge, and… I don't really know what to say about this situation, because I understand that CU owns this land around Lincoln School, and so it's not clear to me who's doing what for whom.

[133:04] But… My first priority would be to do nothing at all to benefit CU in any possible way, they're gonna dwarf the Lincoln School, And… I… I hadn't realized they owned this property, and they're just… Like an octopus. moving into Boulder, all over the place. Now, with the transportation center they're doing, too. Rincon, and up to 7 stories on this site. And I just want to be more understanding of what's going on here. I appreciate, from what Tim's saying, I'm supporting the preservation of the bungalows on Arapaho. Likewise, I support any of these additional historic homes surrounding Lincoln, But absolutely nothing to in any way support CU.

[134:08] with their expansion with CU South, their takeover of 28th Street, the Millennium, high-end student housing, Dark Horse. They are just… they've… I love CU, my dad went there in 1949, but I don't love CU that much. bet. these constant abuses into Boulder and elevating the cost of housing and the cost of the land value here. So, whatever could be done. I don't know. I'm kind of confused where Adrian fits in, and what's going on with that development, and when, and As someone who watches

[135:01] Planning Board? No. Transportation Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees, Water Resources Advisory Board, and Landmarks Board. I would think that I would know more what's going on here. Maybe that's my own fault, but following all those boards is pretty time-consumptive, and I just don't quite get when and what and how this property's being developed. And, so I'm reluctant to make any, you know, advisements, but I'm glad… Thank you. Thanks. Get rid of your music thing, you can just interrupt people. It's sort of a… Now the applicant will have an additional 3 minutes if they would like to comment on anything that's been said during public comment. Would you like to respond to anything that was said?

[136:02] Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Golubic. This is Adrian Sofa with Sofa Spawn Architects. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I… Also appreciate their recognition, the difficulty of making all of the elements of this project come together. We are trying to relocate these structures in a manner that That supports an appropriate Recognition of their historic value and can marry it with the larger intent. of our clients. on this site, and it is a bit of a challenge, and I'm sure you recognize that, and we believe that we have come up with a resolution that makes some sense. And, and I also appreciate Historic Boulder's appreciation… recognition of that intention, so… We're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

[137:02] Chris, just to make everything clear, will you go ahead and swear to tell the truth? As always. Thank you. Thanks. So we're now going to move… does anybody have any additional comments? Any board members? As I hear none, we'll now move on to board discussions. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We'll estimate 45 minutes for the discussion. Does anyone want to lead? I think this is… I think this is… is great. to be honest, I think that this is an intention of… I'm glad to see that these buildings are not moving, off-site, you know, into, as someone had stated before, out of the city limits.

[138:04] I think that, the Arapahoe… I think that this chestnut house is… that's the one we're talking about, on… I think that turning it, as though it wouldn't be public-facing to Arapahoe anymore, I think that… I think it allows for the development of the property, and so I'm excited that it is moving within the designation of the property, and they're reusing and repurposing it, so I'm… I'm happy to see this, and I'm in favor of this, and would love to see it move forward. Michael? Claire, can you… can you show the site plan, the sort of… I thought you had one that showed… The sort of the proposed… it was kind of the more finished-looking site plan.

[139:01] The one that shows the promenade. Thank you. Yeah. one? Nope. It's more developed. what that was? No, because this is just the existing. Yeah, the proposal one, Claire, I know which one he's saying. Oh, the one, let's see… Shows all the landscaping. That is the one that shows the lens. No, no, that one… go on. That's the… okay, good. John, you wanna… You wanna read my mind? Well, hike. We're gonna say… we're gonna say the same thing, aren't we? Probably. I mean, I… I think this… this shared campus walk is a really, really important ingredient. in that… I mean, it's reverse engineering to a certain degree, but I don't think it's unintentional that the houses that were originally facing Arapahoe, both… we'll talk about Chestnut House, but the same is true for Arapahoe, in the sense that they face this new street.

[140:16] It's not just a sidewalk, it's… it's got the dimensions of a street. They're not set back like they were from Arapaho, but I think that still gives them this feeling of… The facade orientation is to something more than just a sidewalk. And, I think it's a nice solution. I do have a problem with the detailing of the wood steps for the front entry, so I don't know if we want to go to that. Slide, and this is… you guys are just gonna have to give me the… the latitude of being a picky architect, as always. But, Claire, if you can go to the front elevation, the proposed front elevation.

[141:06] And zoom in to the actual main entry proposed, if you can. That's asking a lot. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. I can probably use my word. There we go. Oh, that's… that's good enough. Okay. It's… because it's… I mean, I can appreciate that the… the front entry wood railing and wood stair are of wood, painted wood. Some of the hand railing looks a little… modernist, and I would say that the architects can kind of look at whether a handrail, guardrail can can be sort of the same entity. I agree that the… the ADA ramp. Railing would be painted metal of some kind, but my… the recommendation that I would like to get some consensus about is.

[142:03] that stringer condition, and I know this isn't a construction set. But that's a very modern detail for a wood stair, to just have a stringer that conceals the steps, and I would like to see that, for the scale of a residential form like this one, and it's got its own delicacies. That the stringer actually be cut under the treads, so that the tread ends are revealed like they would be in a traditional, sort of, front porch wooden Porch, step, detail. I'd have to draw it to really… if you didn't get that explanation, I'd have to draw it, but, that's the one, sort of. condition that I would add to my support of this proposal. Over.

[143:03] Okay, I'll just… I'll just jump into this. Back to the, the promenade, what I'm calling the promenade. View, plan, I think that, just generally, I think this is a very intelligently Considered design response to this problem. Of creating or freeing space for a… New and optimized use, and at the same time, preserving these structures. Kind of in… I guess, in character of the way they were originally set up, other than the space is tightened up and they're rotated off of their original orientation, but like Michael said, I really like the idea that this… this pedestrian street has been created.

[144:06] And, and, At least in terms of how it's proposed, creating this beautiful green corridor that these two structures now play to. And it… it kind of… it… it smacks a little bit of, kind of, new urbanism as far as how the houses are positioned to each other, and how they're positioned to this pedestrian street. So, I… I… I just think it's well considered, it's an appropriate response. And I, therefore, support it, and support staff's recommendation. And, and, complement the design team and the ownership that Chose them and allowed for this.

[145:03] Do you mind, Renee, if I add one more thing to what John said? And this is a question. that I… I think we would need an answer to, or otherwise we can introduce it as a condition, but since both John and I feel strongly about the power of this shared campus walk, I want to know, is there, you know, is there… just for the sake of understanding it, is there a curb cut? off of Arapahoe, will there be bollards that prevent traffic from driving on that, or is this, in reality, some sort of service access To the future proposed housing main building that we can't talk about. and don't understand. I think John, to characterize it so poetically as this corridor and whatnot, green corridor, it will really suffer and… And betray the support that we have for the orientation of the houses if it turns out to be nothing more than

[146:06] you know, delivery and loading access in the end. So I think I'd want to know that, or at least codify our support with that condition. what's missing from this image is what's happening across Arapaho, because I think there is a penetration into Goss Grove somewhere between 23rd and That… that might line up with it. I wish I could see that. to see… What's happening on the other side. I was gonna speak to that, I think there's a… I like the placement, the… the rotation and orientation of these, I think, situated on the campus walk is really nice, and that campus walk could be a huge asset that's Doesn't perfectly line up, but as far as travel patterns go, relatively close… comes close to lining up with 21st Street.

[147:05] And, my understanding of the… Hopefully I'm not stepping too far out of our lane here, but my understanding of the pedestrian signal in front of the Lincoln School is that that is a very non-traditional treatment in the city of Boulder. That is a relic of when the school was an elementary school, and the city would not install that type of crossing in a mid-block condition today. And I think as this Overall, site has thought about. a mid-block crossing that doesn't actually connect to anything on the north side, doesn't make a ton of sense, and this could be an opportunity to revisit a crossing in this area, and orienting… and relocating it, instead of in the middle of the block, to 21st Street, would further rein… force the intent of the campus walk within this campus, but then also tie nicely into the Goss Grove area that has the traffic diversion that makes it so basically only north-south travel on 21st Street can be done on foot and bike.

[148:17] Yeah, and I think there's the beginnings of that across the street. There's some… That's why I can't remember. I've parked over there and walked over to Lincoln School on several occasions for… various events. And it seems like there is… some… Quasi-pedestrianization along that street and restriction of the parking zones. So, there's… there is an opportunity for this to extend This… this promenade effect to extend Into the neighborhood, and…

[149:00] as Alex just said, create a more logical point of crossing. Great. Chelsea, do you have any comments? I don't think I have anything to add. I support the staff recommendation. Great. Does anyone… Michael, how do you want to approach… The shared campus walk, and… I'm waiting for the proposed motion language to magically appear that captures what I… butchered through. Oh, there's Marcy now. Claire, if you could advance to that one. So, our recommendation had been to approve it as proposed, so we have, modified it. It's not this one, Claire, because… there we go, this one, provided stated conditions are met, and then could you go to the next slide for…

[150:13] proposed conditions, so the first… Two are pretty standard, and then A… open… I think that should be notched Stringer. notched. Stringer? You know. Okay? And then, because this… LAC is part of the larger redevelopment. These are pending landmarks, and so the board's purview of exterior changes are limited to what's in the, proposed designated boundaries, so I've proposed language that says review of the portion of the shared walk that is within the proposed landmark boundary to ensure the house is as publicly visible, as represented. That one's open for

[151:07] editing, what I'm trying to do there is to get at what the staff or LDRC would be looking at, and then why it's important that we review that. landmark boundary, but I thought these were outside of the landmark boundary. of the, Lincoln School, these will have their own landmark boundary. The… sorry, these… You'll have to say… these properties are going to be… have their own landmark boundary associated with them. Yes.

[152:21] I… I guess I… I'll try to… I would say, to ensure The traditional house entry presents itself On a street-like condition as represented. On a street like… And I think where we're trying to go there is, That street, that… that promenade, as John calls it, is…

[153:03] Has some degree of reality that's connected to this approval. Got it. Okay, that might be a little clunky the way I've written it, but it would. Yeah. Read, review of portion of shared walk that is within the proposed landmark boundary to ensure the traditional house entry Maybe is situated, or is oriented, or presents itself on a street like condition. I think we can interpret that. I think I understand the… Excellent. It's always, easier to try and articulate it now than a month from now. And I would just say, in front of the word notched, traditional. There you go. And then I'm ready to rock and roll if you want to go back a slide.

[154:00] Perfect. Hmm. I move that the Landmarks Board adopt a staff memorandum dated April 8th, 2026, as the findings of the board, and approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to relocate a pending landmark chestnut house at 2106. Arapahoe Avenue, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, funding that the proposed meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks. Provided the stated conditions are met. Can… The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the landmark alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by staff to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines and the intent of this approval.

[155:15] A revised design of entry stair to have a traditional notch stringer. B, review of portion of shared walk that is within the proposed landmark boundary to ensure the traditional house entry presents itself on a street-like condition as represented. Period. Great, do we have a second? I… I second it. So, thank you, Michael. And, an additional, let's do a roll call vote. John? Right. Chelsea? Bye. Alex? Aye. Michael?

[156:00] Aye. And I, choose aye. Motion passes unanimously. Claire, could you go over the next steps in the process? Yes, I can. So, usually City Council has 16 days to decide to review, call up the decision. We have to extend this to the next regular council meeting, which isn't until May 7th. If, at that point, they do not call it up, the conditions of the LAC will be reviewed by staff, and once the conditions are satisfied, the LAC will be issued. It's valid for one year. Yeah. Great. We'll move on to the second public hearing. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate applicant to relocate a building, the Arapahoe House, at 2106 Arapahoe Avenue, HIS202600046.

[157:07] A pending individual landmark pursuant to Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code of 1981, and under the Procedures prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, BRC 1981. The owner is Naropa University, and the applicant is Sophers Barn Architects, represented by Kathleen Adams, also known as Kate Adams. And I'll hand it over to Claire for staff presentation. Okay, it's a quasi-judicial hearing. The process is the same as for item 5C. I, Claire Brandt, affirm that I will tell the truth, and I'm going to pause to allow board members to note any ex parte contacts. Right? Hearing none, let's move on. The criteria for review are outlined in Boulder Revised Code under 9-11-18B and C.

[158:08] And the options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. It's the same process, as for application 5B, and again, relocation defined by code as requiring full Landmarks Board review, and that's what we're discussing today. This house is, Also, on the Naropa site, near the northwest corner, it's on the opposite side of the private drive, it's the larger of the two significant buildings on the site. It also faces north onto Arapahoe Avenue. The house was constructed in 1894. It's a frame house with a primary L gable roof form with multiple shed and hip roof projections.

[159:04] The walls are clad in a combination of decorative shiplap siding, fish scale, and notched tooth siding, and the windows are predominantly vertically oriented, double-hung throughout. Again, staff analysis will include site, key site and setting characteristics, mass and scale, and key building elements, and the materials and detailing. Staff analysis of the quay site and setting characteristics, includes setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings. So this house is proposed to be relocated to the northwest, to the corner of the property. The proposed new location will include an approximate 2.5 foot setback from Arapahoe Avenue and 5 feet from the west lot line. This one is not proposed to be rotated, it's proposed to face Arapahoe Avenue and be prominently visible from the public rights of way.

[160:08] The mature trees that need to be removed include five trees mentioned at the northwest corner of the lot. The same guidelines apply to relocation of this house, recommended traditional setbacks, orientation to the street, to consider the adjacent structures and the site so the relocated structure adapts harmoniously to its new Location, and does not appear awkward or out of place. Staff finds that the relocation will not change the building's traditional alignment facing Arapahoe Avenue. While the front setback is shallower than traditionally found, the property line is setback approximately 6 feet from the sidewalk behind the historic Smith Goss Ditch, and this helps maintain the general traditional setbacks with a lawn area preserved between the street and the building facade.

[161:05] Overall, staff found that the proposed relocation does not detract from the overall historic character of the site. It doesn't require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature. It does not inadvertently destroy or adversely affect the historical, cultural, architectural significance of the site, as Lincoln School and the Smith-Goss Ditch are not impacted by the relocation. Again, we grouped the analysis for mass and scale, which includes the height, form, and key building elements, including dormers, windows, and doors. The enclosed rear porch is proposed to be removed. The house, again, will be lifted from its existing rubble foundation and placed on a new concrete foundation to raise the finished floor height. to the required flood protection elevation. New stairs and railing will be added to the front porch to accommodate the new height. Existing stairs at the secondary porch at the northeast corner will be removed and the railing patched.

[162:16] This is the east elevation. The rear enclosed porch is, proposed to be removed, is right here, and it's removed. And the, south rear elevation also shows the, the rear porch removed and the wall patched. The house will be connected to the concrete walkway ramp and patio at the rear to allow access at the southwest corner at an existing door. So the guidelines note that original porches should be preserved, maintaining the height, detail, and spacing of the original balustrade. Whenever possible, retain and preserve all original doors and door openings. Maintain the dominant roofline and orientation of the roof form to the street.

[163:08] We compared plans and found that the enclosed porch at the rear that's proposed to be removed was added around 1950, and was enclosed after 1979. Staff finds that the removal of the existing rear porch is appropriate. It's not a significant feature of the house, and its removal does not impact the historic integrity or significance of the building. Additionally, staff finds that the new concrete foundation to raise the finished floor height to the required flood protection elevation is appropriate. The addition of stairs and new railing to the front porch does not compromise the character of the porch, as the height, detail, and spacing will generally match. The proposed ramp, concrete patio, and safety railing, while clearly contemporary, are appropriately placed at the rear of the building.

[164:02] Analysis of the materials and details includes the scale, proportion, texture, type, and finish. The new stairs and railing will be added to the existing front porch to accommodate the new height of the porch. The stairs and railing are proposed to be constructed of wood and painted. The area of siding from the removed rear porch is proposed to be patched with wood siding to match, and the house is proposed to be painted. The access ramp at the rear is proposed to be unplainted concrete and include the black metal handrail. The guidelines note that original historic finished materials should be preserved and repaired, and new finished materials should be compatible, but not seek to replicate original finished materials, and use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. When repainting, select paint colors appropriate to the historic building, and when possible, recreate historic paint schemes based on samples of original materials. It's inappropriate to introduce or eliminate

[165:09] Exterior lighting fixtures, if doing so, will detract from the overall historic character of the building, site, or streetscape, and lighting should be functional, not just decorative. Staff considers that the proposed new painted wood stair and railing at the front porch is appropriate, as the proposed materials are similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. Additionally, handrails for the stairs that meet accessibility requirements should be added as needed, but should not detract from the overall historic character of the building. Staff considers the proposed colours appropriate to the features of a Queen Anne house. The access ramp at the rear, again, is proposed to be unpainted concrete, and includes the metal, black metal handrail. And, for this building, too, staff considers that the handrail may be inappropriate, but safety is a priority.

[166:06] And the applicants could consider a lighter color if allowed. Under the appropriate permitting. New lighting was not included in the application, and functional lighting fixtures should be added as needed, but should not detract from the overall historic character of the building site or streetscape. Staff found the proposed relocation of the building to be appropriate. And recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the findings that the project will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate and approve the application. So the same process as, 5B, the next steps are the applicant has up to 10 minutes to present to the board. Followed by, public participation, and an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that was said, and then board deliberation.

[167:02] And a reminder again that the Board's decision is criteria-based and considers whether the project meets the standards for issuance of the landmark alteration Certificate. And did anyone have any questions? Okay, great. Great. Fastest presentation ever. So let's move to the applicant. Kate? Bye. Hi. Hello again, I will tell the truth again. Kathleen Adams. So, I don't, once again, don't have another full presentation, just want… appreciate the thoroughness of this, staff report. I guess I can say one thing to head off, some of the comments about the railings and the grade. If our final grades do not require 42-inch high guardrails, we will reduce the height of those guardrails. And I just want to throw it out there, because I know that was a comment from before.

[168:14] Thank you. Now we'll move into public comment. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand or press star 9 if you'd like to speak to this item. Mariah… We'll identify those self when you… will you please swear to tell the truth to the board, and state your full name, and we'll proceed and have 3 minutes. Mariah? Alright, first up, we have Michelle Bishop. Hello again, Michelle Bishop. I swear to tell the truth as far as I know it. on this, I have, I noticed some of your comments about that pedestrian walkway.

[169:04] And I saw on the plan, if you want to look at that plan again, the final location of the two moved buildings. that there on Arapaho, on the street access, there are no indications of any landscaping. So that would indicate to me that that is an entrance from Arapaho, and your suspicions of having access to vehicles for various reasons into that pedestrian walkway could be accurate. So, I know this is probably a little past your… your… responsibility in this particular situation, but I think that's something that Needs to be looked at. And 21st, on the way across, you know our streets turn, so 21st doesn't go through to the north, it turns, and then it goes all the way to 17th before you can get off of it again.

[170:08] So, if you've ever been into Goss Grove, we call it Lost in Goss Grove, because there's those diversions and those… those dead-end streets, which we love, because each one has a little park. So it's a challenging little neighborhood. Again, I want to comment and compliment the architects for this solution to preserve these two homes. And, I've heard a lot from neighbors about the old trees, the grand trees. I don't know what the designation is, but they were very… concerned about the preservation of those, and I understand that that's going to occur. So, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you again, and that's all. Thank you, Michelle.

[171:00] If anyone else would like to speak, can you please raise your hand? Alright, next up we've got Lynn Siegel. When you ready, Lynn? Yeah, Lynn, I swear to tell the truth as best I know it, and Michelle, I agree with you. Those trees shouldn't go out. That… I don't like that at all. And, you know, I've lived here 37 years. You would think that by now, having been at the Naropa campus many times before, and involved with the Buddhist community, my brother became a Buddhist, you know, like, that I would be able to understand these drawings. Maybe I'm asking too much, but I don't see the context of where the Lincoln School is, and where this development from CU is gonna go surrounding this. And what is going to be the long-term situation of this property, which I'm really distressed about. I know there was a lot of flooding issues, and that the owner of Naropa

[172:10] The president, whatever, felt, you know, I've watched that place, remember, Renee, across the street? You know, so, I've been following this, but, you know, maybe I'm just too… not smart enough. Not intellectual enough to understand, kind of, simple drawings, and why we can't see, like, the bigger scale drawings. Like, when I look at a country. Today, I was at a talk on Cambodia. I had to pull up on my computer the whole area, so I can see where it fits, what the context is. And I wish I could do that, but I can't. Meantime, you're moving these houses, I don't really understand why. Or what… is going on? Like, what's the function of this? And… That's kind of important.

[173:08] I mean, I'm glad they're being preserved. But why are they being moved? What's going on here? I don't get it. I know Lincoln School, I know all of those buildings. the library, all of that stuff. I don't get what's happening here. And this is the town I've been in for 37 years, and I don't go anywhere. I don't travel, because I live in Boulder, and I can't afford to. Everything I own is for my kids for climate change. So, you know, I'm just trying to understand my own city, and I don't. And I'm sorry if I'm putting you in the middle of it, because you have nothing to do with this, just like everybody, you know, it's not your fault. But I'd sure like to understand the context.

[174:03] That's all I have to say. Thanks. Thanks, Len. Lynn… I don't see anyone else with their hand raised. The applicant may have an additional 3 minutes if they'd like to comment on anything that has been said during public comment. Would you like to respond to anything that was said? Kate? I don't believe so. Thanks. We now get to move to board discussions. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We estimate 30 minutes for the discussion. Does anyone want to start it off? John is unmuted. Yeah, I unmuted. I… would…

[175:04] could say all the same things I already said. This is very similar. I think it's very well considered. I think that it's appropriately relocated. And it helps create a kind of… continuous… new… realm… That is an internal formation as opposed to just along Arapaho. And it breaks by… by going perpendicular… by making the movement go perpendicular, it breaks the… The street orientation of everything and creates the campus as more of a space in its own right. And, I wholly support the recommended Outcome on this, and support staff's recommendation, and…

[176:04] Complement the design team and the owners. I will have the same comment regarding the stair detail, but can I… Claire, can you show the… It would be the east elevation. I guess the north and the east elevations. I think it's clear. I'll go ahead and… Share my screen, but let me go to… The right one here. Okay.

[177:06] And you're looking for the… which elevation? It would be the east elevation. Where are RV? Here. Because I… I was… it was… There we go. I believe I'm wrong. What I said earlier about both houses rotating to face this… Private street, they don't. This one remains oriented facing Arapahoe, but I wanna… I do want to see what the east elevation… just in case there's something… So that's… that's still facing the street. Arapahoe, that would be the north elevation, right? Yep. East.

[178:07] Does anyone feel strongly that there should be a stair up to that side elevation? That little enclosed… I presume that's what we're seeing, is a porch on the corner that's enclosed, but without a stair? Actually, I could… I could definitely support that, now that you look at it this way. What's on the front? Oh, I see. Well, that's the… that's the part of the race. That… no, on the… on the… I can't really point to it, but you see the main gable at the center of the east elevation, and then to the right, just to the north of it, you see a big shadow cast that would imply that there's an open porch on that corner. And maybe that's in a photograph of an existing… of the existing house, but the reason for me to propose that is to reinforce this notion that

[179:06] at least for both houses, there is some orientation to this. It puts the pressure on that private promenade to… to be something… that is special and justifies the rotation of the chestnut House. Is there a… is there a photograph of… Yeah, I see… I see what you're seeing, Michael. So, sister. It's a rail. Oh, see that… so… so see that on the upper left-hand corner, I think, is… no? I mean, that's the… that's the open porch I'm… I'm thinking of, but… In the proposed north elevation, are… are they closing that off, or how… Do you have… I think it's… I think it's a perspective… trends. No, see where it says, new railing in… fill to match existing? Do you see that on the right-hand side? So they are proposing to close that railing off that's now open.

[180:11] And… and I guess I'm making a recommendation. I don't want to be out of turn in designing it as a board member, but that there be a stair that would head to the east from that side porch. I mean, I would say… I like the recommend… I like that recommendation, but… Can we explore… recommend that it be explored? Yeah, I was just wondering what the usage of these buildings were, and if there was a reason for it not to be. offices, likely, but… but again, if… if the… you know, if the… if these houses, while this one isn't physically being spun.

[181:00] Every… Oriented, at least a stair going in that direction reinforces And help support the reorientation of the Chestnut House. Yeah. I agree. while I said that, I'm out of breath from the first motion, but… Alex, or… Chelsea, do you guys… Have any comments? Renee, I'll kick it back to you. Comments? I don't I agree with the staff recommendation. That's really, like, the staff recommendation, and then since the… there's a lot to be determined on what's going on design-wise and function-wise on the inside of these, so I wouldn't want to… tie the applicant's hands, so I think I could be supportive of an exploration of a staircase that

[182:02] Extends towards the east. Where the walkway is. Great. Yeah, I think it's worth doing and using the word explore Freeze the, applicant to explore. No. So do we have a motion? And, staff findings… Are they the same? Conditions as the first time? No, Abe would be, access stair to the porch That… if they… On the east elevation. The North Standard. make sure. This is… Let me come back. Let's suit. Let's see. Yep.

[183:00] But it's the east elevation. I thought that was the North. This is the north, but if you go to the east elevation. North Richmond. That's where the stair would… now, point on to the proposed. Elevation? Go to the right. Go to the… right there. Okay. No, but isn't it facing… the East. It's facing the promenade. It's facing the promenade. OT. Walkway. Oh, I see. You're trying… you're doing a non-hist… you're gonna do a non-historic entry facing the promenade instead of facing Arapahoe. They, they do have the, they have the main entry. This is a side porch. Yeah, okay. It's an exploration. Yeah, no. So that's on the east elevation.

[184:00] Yeah. Okay. On the east. Elevation. Okay, great. And then the other two are… I heard, Michael, you say you would, support the same one, so revise the design of the entry stair to help. Except for C, yeah, except for C doesn't apply, because the house is not rotated. So, okay, got it. Yeah. I mean, it's essentially what A is asking for. Should I take a deep breath? Am I the one that's gonna do this? I can do it if you don't want to. Go for it. Poor, John. Thank you. I'll make the motion. I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated April 8th, 2026, as the findings of the board, and approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to relocate a pending landmark, Arapaho house, at 2106 Arapaho Avenue.

[185:06] Pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, finding that the proposal meets the standards. for issuance of a landmark alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks, provided the stated conditions are met. Which I will now read. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the landmark alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by staff

[186:09] to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the general design guidelines and the intent of this approval. A, explore adding an access stair to the porch on the east elevation, and that's the Front corner porch on that elevation. Revised design of entry stair to have a B. Revised design of entry stair to have a traditional notched stringer. So moved. Great. Do we have a second? Tracking. Second. Thanks, John, and thanks, Michael, for the second. We will now do a roll call vote. John? Hi. Chelsea.

[187:00] Bye. Alex. Hey. Michael. Aye. And I state aye. Motion passes unanimously. Claire, could you go over the next steps in the process? Or Mars. Or Mercy. There we go. Yes, I'll go ahead and finish this out. So, similar to the other two LACs, the decision is subject to City Council call-up, but the next available… Meeting isn't until May 7th, so after that point, then the, conditions of the LAC will be reviewed. And I want to make sure we have the level of review in the… Motion, which… maybe we want to do a point of clarification. Oh, we have it, but to staff for these two, relocations. So,

[188:05] Anytime after May 7th, if Council doesn't call it up, the applicants will revise their plans to meet those conditions and submit for final staff review and approval. Otherwise, if Council chooses to call up the decision, we'll schedule a public hearing within 45 days. So… With that, thank you to the applicants and, owners for your time this evening. Great. Let's move on to matters. Alrighty. Okay, so… We have a couple of items under matters this evening. The first is, more of a reminder, or a, that, with the new board members appointed, typically the board would hold, kind of elections or appointments for chair and vice chair at your May meeting, and so it's, kind of an informal process. Usually, a board member will make a nomination, that person will accept the nomination, and then, the board will vote.

[189:16] on Chair and Vice Chair, and the landmarks Board practice, I think, has, been varied in terms of how long A chair has served, I think, Renee, you've served for… the last year, I believe, as well as Michael's. Just a heads up that that is coming at your meeting next month. The next thing that, we wanted to bring to you this evening was, kind of an update, kind of checking in about the, Mark's Design Review Committee, And… let me just get my windows sorted here. Okay, So, we wanted to have a discussion, with Alex now on the board, and as Mariah steps into her role of… as the program coordinator, looking at the,

[190:14] commitment, the time commitment, the proposed rotation, and the agreements, for the Landmarks Design Review Committee. So, starting with kind of the purpose of the LDRC, it's a pretty unique and valuable part of our program. It provides a middle level of review. So that everything is not either reviewed at the staff level or in a public hearing by the full board. The decisions are made by two board members and a staff member. That staff member provides continuity and professional expertise, and the board members provide technical and general expertise, as well as different perspectives. Two Landmarks board members have to be design professionals, which provides that, kind of architectural lens.

[191:01] And it's also really important to have a balance on the board where non-architects make decisions about how historic buildings change over time, and whether a building is potentially eligible for designation. This gives a community perspective and balances the application of the design guidelines. So, the DRC provides a venue for collaborative and timely review for the more complex LAC applications and proposals for the oldest buildings in the city. The applicants and owners have a chance to hear directly from the decision makers, and to have a chance to clarify their proposal, or it can be an iterative process where we're designing collaboratively in the meeting. It's generally effective. The majority of cases are approved in a single meeting. So, in 2024 and 2025, the DRC was pretty transformed. The board adopted an administrative rule to allow staff to review the majority of LAC

[192:04] And Council adopted an ordinance to extend the initial review time from 14 to 21 days, and extend the approval time from 180 days to 1 year. So we've seen significant results in the last year. The majority of LAC cases are now reviewed administratively. We've seen a reduction in the number of LDRC meetings held each year from 40 to 32. As well as a reduction in the volunteer time commitment from about 26 to 60 hours per board member, down to 14 to 22 hours per board member. We're able to focus the LDRC on the more complex applications, and as I mentioned, most cases are approved within one meeting. And last year, we don't know if it, is a blip or not, but fewer LAC applications were referred to the Landmarks Board in 2025. And then the pie charts on the right there.

[193:02] track the blue LDRC review, about 60% of cases were reviewed by the DRC in 2024, and that dropped to 30% in 2025. So we only have one year of data to base our decisions on. This means that we do need to remain flexible. For example, our caseload for 2026 is up about 30%. So we are basing this on what we know from last year, but also that, we be flexible as, if the needs change. So, I'm gonna hand it off to Mariah as a program coordinator to go over the, time commitment and proposed rotation. Thank you, Marcy. So based on this one year of data, we anticipate a schedule that could have, three meetings a month. This would allow us to change the L…

[194:03] sorry, to cancel the LDRC on the first Wednesday of the month when board meetings are held. We believe we can fit the cases into a 2-hour window from 9am to 11 a.m. However, most of the, Most weeks, we won't use the full time. The time commitment for the board, will be shared across the five members, meaning that each member will typically serve once a month, and occasionally serve two times a month. In total, we anticipate an annual time commitment of 20 to 30 hours per year per board member. We have a couple, request, noting that scheduling, for the LDRC is a really complex puzzle. We have code requirements to consider. It requires that two board members and one staff member serve on the LDRC. The meetings must be publicly noticed at least 24 hours in advance, and initial review must occur within 21 days of a complete application.

[195:08] We also have some goals as staff. We aim for the schedule to be predictable and consistent with one design professional, if possible. We'd like to schedule the same members for repeat cases when they happen, but the occurrence is rare. We would like to avoid pairing… avoid pairing board members up, which can lead to inconsistency in the review. We aim to cancel the first Wednesday of the month for the Landmarks Board meetings. We've also found it useful for a newly appointed member to shadow two to three meetings before joining the rotation, and this happens in April of each year. We created the proposed rotation with the following assumptions. The rotation is equally distributed across all members. We provide a 12-month rotation in advance. The board members are responsible for finding substitutes for known conflicts after the schedule is posted.

[196:04] And, that we'll also start an on-call rotation with a dedicated third member to cover any last-minute substitutions. So here's a look at the proposed rotation. To kind of give you an idea of this, let's follow, member 1 through 5 months. This is Architect 1 in the color red. So the first Wednesday of the month is canceled, and they serve once a month in May, June, and August, and then twice a month in July and September. They're typically paired with members 3 and 4, which provides consistency if a case does need to return to the LDRC. And then they serve on-call about once a month, but sometimes not at all. And so we wanted to make some commitments to you all as well, and ask for a couple things in return. So as a staff, we are committing to provide the schedule 12 months at a time, which would be April to March to coincide with board appointments.

[197:10] It'll be shared through, a read-only document and individual calendar appointments. We will check in quarterly with the board if the schedule needs to adjust. We'll provide accurate calendar appointments with the Zoom link, agenda link, and the rotating board members, which will update on Monday before the Wednesday meeting. We're agreeing to post the agenda on the website on Friday to provide advanced notice for applicants, board members, and the community. We're agreeing to start the meetings on time and stick to the estimated times as much as possible. But we do, again, ask for some flexibility with that, because sometimes cases go over. In return, we're asking of you that members respond to the schedule when it is sent out, by emailing confirmation, saying you're available for all of the scheduled, or if you have conflicts.

[198:03] We're also asking that when we send out those calendar invitations, that you respond with the RSVP function. We're also asking board members to be responsible for finding substitutes after the schedule has been posted. And then we also ask that in the case of last-minute conflicts, you communicate substitutions with us as soon as possible. And I'll pass it back to Marcy. Thanks. Yeah, so with that, we'd like to open it up. Does the board have any feedback on the proposed rotation, again, held each Wednesday morning except the first Wednesday of the month? from 9 to 11 a.m. The schedule's equally distributed across all members, each member serving 1-2 times a month, and then also serving on-call rotation for any last-minute substitutes, and that we would provide a 12-month rotation, but check in quarterly.

[199:12] I have a thought. Well, and this won't be a surprise to anyone, because I have been saying this since I started on this board 4 years ago, I just want to lift up that… This requirement basically means that people who have 9-to-5 jobs, who don't have any flexibility with their jobs, which is most people, can't be on this board and can't serve on this board. Which basically means that this board will always be not representative of the community. And so I will continue to advocate that we find ways to make this more equitable. We are the only board that has this. I understand that it's really valuable. But there are a lot of things that would be really valuable on every other board, and they don't do them because it's a burden to the volunteers, and they figure out other processes that meet the needs of the program.

[200:12] With that being said. I think one adjustment that could be made to make this a little bit easier for, people like myself who can't just take off 2 hours of work every month. Or, like, every few weeks, is to have the start time be at 8, and have it be from 8 to 10. Most jobs start at 9, so at least that's just 1 hour that we have to take off, as opposed to 2. And… I understand that that's earlier, but it's also, I think worth it for… to make sure that we can be flexible for those who have jobs. So that's my proposal.

[201:02] Is it… Chelsea, is it… are you equally as amenable to, like, a 4 to 6 p.m? Adjustment? I'm fine with the 8 to 10, but I'm just saying, like, you know, I think that ultimately comes down to what can the staff accommodate in there. If they're in a 9-to-5 job. Like you are. I don't know, I don't know, I'm just trying to throw an alternate to exactly where you're headed. Yeah, I mean, honestly, 4 to 6 would probably even be easier, but… I'm… I… yeah, that's… I'd be open to that if that's something that would be willing to be considered. When I started on the board, some time ago. The meetings… were in person, and they started at 8 in the morning, so that was the way it was until the pandemic.

[202:07] And then during the pandemic, it got shifted to 9, which… Worked better, since nobody was going to work 9 to 5 quite as often. And… and then we kind of stuck with that. But it was originally at 8. So… That… that is worth considering, if that would help. And the 4 to 6, Maybe, maybe there was a… 4-6 meeting at least once every month, or something like that, if we… if we elected to do something like that, rather than make all the meetings and Because that would… That would maybe even serve the community to have a variety In a given month of… of time offerings that could work for some of the Some of the applicants.

[203:04] Better. interesting ideas. Yeah, so, the, like, when the meeting's held, etc, we're open to your feedback, so Chelsea, is what I'm hearing from you, that you would be available from 8 to 10 on Wednesday mornings? That's… yeah, it's much easier to accommodate that than 9 to 11. And are you absolutely not available from 9 to 11? That's correct. I have, every Wednesday, I have a meeting at 10 a.m. Okay. as we explained, it's a lot of schedules to, juggle, as well as the applicants and all of that. And… So, I think one of the… Goals is that it be, you know, consistent through, through the weeks so that

[204:05] we have some predictability for us. So, what I'm hearing is a request to reconsider when the time is for the starting time. And, maybe that's something that we'll look into. But I think what's important that I'm hearing is that you would be available for that 2-hour time commitment for the weeks that you are scheduled. Yeah, and then I think, too, for… You know, I'm just also just thinking about potential future applicants who are joining this board. You know, not every LDRC is 2 hours, so at least some of the time, people can be done a little bit before 10, just be easier to accommodate with work schedules. And I do have an observation that in the past, there were a lot of retirees on the Landmarks Board, and the current board, all five of you are working, and so, understanding that

[205:07] you all have constraints, you all have, things, but there also is, I think, a broader representation on this board than in the past when the majority of members were retired. And that's fine, but I think that there's several architects who, like, own their own firms, or just… sole proprietors, and so I guess it's a very unique type of flexibility that you need to have that level of… I don't want to say, like, it's not privilege, but it is sort of the privilege to make your own schedule, and so I… and I think, you know, I'll ask my colleagues to like, I don't want to speak for them, but, knowing other architects, it seems like there's a little bit more flexibility there. And Alex, you're welcome to chime in and say what you're… Situation is.

[206:01] Yeah, I've got a unique work situation, for sure, so it makes this doable, but in support of some of the things that Chelsea has brought up, I think an 8 AM start time would be… A good way to sort of straddle the line between traditional work hours and more personal hours in a way that, Might allow more people to participate without being too far outside of, like, staff's traditional hours as well. And we'll, take that feedback and maybe come back to you. I know personally, for me, as the staff member who does the majority of the LDRCs, an 8AM start is, personally difficult for me with my own, Family situation, and so, you know, we want to be flexible and accommodating for the board members that are on the board now, and then, kind of Sensitive to the requirement, you know, the volunteer time, for future recruitments as well.

[207:08] Yeah, and I mean, I think… I mean, I'm all for the 9 o'clock start time. I think that, when you… you know, I get that we're trying to meet the work… working environment, and you talk of, like, architects being on the board, and usually the firm would be supportive of this, architect usually being on the board, so it would be, usually something that, they would, the… the firm would be okay with. I think if you do create, early times or late times, it runs into, personal, or I'll just say it, like, family time, and being a, a mom, and making it earlier, and possibly after those times is a little bit harder to meet, and so then you're going to start niching out other

[208:05] demographics in trying to do that as well. So, I mean, there's always positive, and there's always negatives to 9 o'clock or 8 o'clock starts, so… But I will say that I'm for the 9 to, 11 o'clock start. Okay, and then, and knowing that there isn't going to be, like, one perfect solution that… that works, for everybody's ideal, what do you all think about this idea of serving on-call rotation, just in case there's some… something that comes up last minute? Can you speak more to what that means? That means that on this schedule, there would be two people, scheduled to serve on the LDRC, and then a third person that's on call, so it might be… it would be on your calendar, just in case

[209:06] One of the two members who are scheduled has a last-minute conflict, or doesn't show. forgets. Or for. behind me. Yeah. Again, I would not be able to do that within 9 to 11 start time, because then you're basically… you have to commit to more than You have to, yeah, you have to basically say that you're not going to be available. In case you're the one called. And ideally, you know, the on-call person would not be used Very frequently, but there have been a couple of cases in the last couple months where, you know, we're scrambling, the applicants are on the call, we're calling the three other board members and hoping that somebody will answer, and it just, we're trying to put a bit of a safety net so that we can Hold the meeting, because we have so many

[210:00] we have to review them with two board members and a staff member within 21 days. We're not often able to just postpone it to the next week. Yeah, I… I have no problem with… on-call assignments, I mean… Being on call when… Necessary. it… it… I could… I could see that it… it just makes scheduling a little more… Bomb-proof, and, and I have at least… I have sufficient flexibility that I could be on call. I would… something. Sorry, I didn't… I thought you were done. Well, no, no, I'm just saying that it's… I mean, being… being a person that is typically able to step in as the last-minute

[211:02] substitute. You know, I don't… I don't mind that idea. I… I have a hard time understanding what that's going to look like from a schedule standpoint, because if… if… if I'm already looking at a calendar, and I'm committed to two Wednesdays out of the month, is what it sounds like it averages out to, but it has to be less than that. But regardless, let's say it's two. And then I'm… I'm then being asked to also So, so on those two Wednesdays, I'm not scheduling any meetings with clients or anything like that, but I'm gonna fill up the other Wednesdays And it would be hard to then say, oh, I need to have a third Wednesday that I need to preserve on my… on my workday calendar. So I… I would need to see how that really plays itself out. Yeah. Month-to-month standpoint. So basically, with the exception of weeks that… or, sorry, months that have 5 weeks, and a standard

[212:05] four-week month. The rotation has worked out to where one person is scheduled for two meetings, the rest of the board is scheduled for one meeting, and then also has an on-call. So it would be two weeks that you have to block out total. So, one on call, and one, And one scheduled, or two scheduled. a month. That's evil. Always do… you basically have to block your calendar off always for 2. Wednesday. And whether you're actually going or not is dependent on if you get… An alternate, because the problem that we're trying to solve is making sure that we have coverage. And so, another alternative would be recognizing, maybe, John, you have more flexibility, you might be the first person.

[213:05] That was what I was gonna say. And then maybe we test that out, and if… if we need to adjust in a couple months from now, we… we do that. Yeah, I'm… I'm effectively… More retired than… most of the people on the board, so I can give that time to the board. Some of it. Not all of it, but some. Alright, so we'll, we'll scratch the on-call rotation, and we'll… we'll call John first, if that's… if that's a good proposal. And then we will kind of come back to you all with, Varying the start time, you taking your, your, requests into consideration.

[214:03] Is there a… Thought. about… Changing the code around some of… Our work here to allow for more flexibility. How so? For example… only requiring one board member at LDRC, or one voting, you know, so that it would be one staff member, one board member. I mean, I don't know, you could reimagine the whole thing, but I think that just this conversation is another… it's just indicative of, I think. A bit of a… A broken process that requires too much of volunteers, to keep the program going. And so, I think there are more structural ways that we could Tom. imagine how this all works. I don't know what that is, but, I mean, just that one, not having to have two people at every meeting.

[215:06] Would, obviously. Help. Sure, and obviously that's a much bigger conversation. I think for my perspective, I think the LDRC is a very positive piece of the program. The changes we made in the last two years really help strengthen and focus it, and so it… I find a lot of value in a committee review of these designs and decisions, and so, of course, there are ways you can continue to imagine it, but I wouldn't agree with the statement that it's broken. I think this is a complex scheduling, exercise, but I wouldn't say that it's broken. So, I think that is probably, sufficient for this evening. We'll, circulate that schedule in the next couple days, and then ask that you respond with any potential, or any known vacations or time out of the…

[216:16] That you're not available you know, kind of looking ahead, and then, let's come back maybe in August, to… Revisit it and make any adjustments if we need to. Great. Thanks, Marci. Alright, and then Claire, are you… online and ready. Here we go. Okay, take it away. Thank you, I'm gonna… Hopefully, my internet will stay connected. Okay, so, through…

[217:01] this series. We've been looking at how historic places give context to events that have shaped Boulder's history, and connect us to our national history. We're really working hard to tell a more complete history of Boulder, including the stories of people who may have been overlooked in the past. Our role here is to help guide the development of the city and preserve the historic built resources that the community values. Places in Boulder We have the power to connect history with real lives, and can be used to honor, acknowledge, and memorialize people in our history. But only if we know that history. There are more than 220 individual landmarks in Boulder. Each tell a unique story of Boulder's architectural history.

[218:01] But only about 10% of our current individual landmarks specifically honor the achievements of the women who lived there. This isn't by design. Our guidelines for naming landmarks specifically say to consider the contributions of both men and women. So how do we end up underrepresenting 50% of the population and their stories? The Cowie House at 703 Pine Street is a great starting place for looking at this disparity. The house was designated as an individual landmark for its association with the Cowie family. James Cowie was Mayor of Boulder and Colorado Secretary of State. As the patriarch, he takes top billing. But his sister, Mary Cowie, is also mentioned. Mary was Baldur's first female postmaster. She served as Deputy County Clerk and Recorder from 1892, and was appointed Deputy Postmaster in 1894.

[219:07] She replaced Mr. F. D. Kirk in the role, which made the front page of the Boulder Daily Camera. According to the newspaper article, Mr Kirk's politics were offensive, and he was advised to walk the plank. This was not entirely unexpected. The previous year, Colorado had been the first state to enact women's suffrage by popular referendum. In 1894, women voted in a statewide election, and three women were elected to the Colorado House of Representatives. Mary was part of a new wave of professional women in leadership roles. She held the role as deputy for 28 years, and was then appointed postmaster by the United States Senate, beating out three male candidates, including the incumbent.

[220:01] She was appointed twice more and served until 1934. Mary didn't marry. She would have had to resign her role if she had. She lived with her brother for about a decade, and then boarded with Ava Metcalf, a widow, at 933 Pine Street for the next decade. Ava likely provided a room, meals, and companionship for Mary. Ava died in 1926, and Mary moved into the Baldorado Hotel, where she lived for about 14 years, until after her retirement. Even though Mary had the money to purchase her own home, social pressures likely kept her from doing so. It was unusual for a unmarried woman to live alone, unchaperoned. And women were excluded from the workplace once they married. So, if we use property ownership and job success as the primary measure of who is significant in Boulder's history, we're already steering towards men.

[221:04] The story of Mary Cowie's niece, Florence Cowie Malloy, and her life partner, Mabel McClay, provides another interesting example. In early 1918, Mary encouraged the couple to move to Boulder. Florence was married to Thomas Molloy. They lived on the Molloy family land near Syracuse, New York, with their two children, Mary and Jane, until their marriage public… quickly fell apart, and Thomas moved to New York City. The state of New York adopted women's suffrage in 1917, and we don't currently know if Florence was politically active, but she was certainly around women who had been insisting for years that they expected the same rights as men. Years before Florence was born, in 1848, participants at the Seneca Falls Convention adopted the Declaration of Sentiments, which set the tone for women's political action. Women's inability to vote topped the list of complaints, but other demands included more independence and expanded divorce and property rights.

[222:13] Florence was empowered to live her life without her husband, whom she didn't divorce. She accepted the deed to his family land, which continued to provide her an income through the rest of her life. Florence met Mabel McClay in Syracuse. Mabel was born Mabel Knight in Oregon, where she married Lachlan McClay. Mabel Lachlan and son Donald moved to Syracuse, New York, when Lachlan accepted the position as Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce. Mabel walked away from her husband after he entered the military service in 1917. The Oswego Palladium reported that when war broke out, Mr McClay volunteered for service and has been promoted to a captaincy. Before Going away, he told his wife, I am going to war. You have the whole United States to play in.

[223:05] Florence Mabel and their three children packed up all of their belongings and began the long drive to Boulder. The family arrived in Boulder during the summer of 1918, in the waning days of World War I. They began their taxi service saying they didn't know how to do anything else. This was likely true, there's nothing to suggest that either woman attended college which would have qualified them to teach. Teaching was one of the few socially acceptable professions for women at the time, but as married women with children. They would not have been hired, even if they were qualified for the role. The Boulder School Board did not allow married women to teach until 1942. By 1920, Boulder was ahead of the curve in national causes led by women. When Congress passed the 19th Amendment paving the way for all women to vote, Colorado women had enjoyed that privilege for a quarter of a century.

[224:12] However, Florence and Mabel had to borrow money from Mary Cowie to purchase their second car. Until 1974 and the passage of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act, women were generally excluded from traditional banking, including owning bank accounts, applying for credit, and securing mortgages and loans without a man, a father, or a husband present at the bank to make decisions. Yet, even with women in Boulder progressing social causes, Florence and Mabel remained relatively quiet and diminutive to their male counterparts. For the next few years, at least. As progressive as Boulder was in the roaring 20s, Florence and Mabel had to hide their personal relationship. There were no public displays of affection to indicate that they were anything other than friends.

[225:04] By December 1918, their taxi business was well established, but when Florence and Mabel promoted their taxi service, they made sure to note that they had their husband's permission, and that they weren't taking a man's job, since taxi drivers in Boulder had been called to the draft. As the influenza pandemic gripped the nation, the ladies associated themselves with the Red Cross, although they did not train as nurses. They told stories of comforting bereaved mothers while transporting the deceased. All of these things were seen as appropriate and patriotic for women during and immediately after the war. But, as it… It became apparent that Florence and Mabel were not giving up the business after the war. But then narrative chain, too. They promoted themselves as widows, even though their husbands were still very much alive. And they joined what the National Taxicab and Motor Bus Journal described as the crowd of taxi drivers besieging the Boulder Depot at all trains, a jostling, pushing crowd of men crying out their services.

[226:14] The journal noted that this was not a pleasant place for a woman driver, and not pleasant for a woman customer either. So Florence and Mabel marketed their services as a woman-owned business, primarily for women. They presented themselves as the safest choice for women, especially unmarried young ladies who are expected to have a chaperone. The journal wrote, many parents of girl students insist that Mrs. McClay or Mrs. Molloy personally drive their daughters. But their business was not exclusively for women. They would accept any work, as long as it was not driving liquor into Dry Boulder, what they abruptly called booze hauling.

[227:01] But as unemployment soared in the post-World War I, An economy. The difference between those that had work and money and those that did not became wider. Racial and economic inequities deepened, but so did the resentment of men who felt that jobs had been taken by women. And the women and their success was highly visible. Florence was around 6 feet tall, and typically wore an ankle-length fur coat when photographed. Mabel also did not conform to gender expectations. She frequently donned pants and a shirt and tie. Mabel and husband Lachlan McClay publicly divorced in 1923, an event that made the front page of the Daily Camera, and a surprise to everyone who had previously thought she was a widow. Florence managed to keep the existence of her husband secret, even though he visited his daughters in Baldur multiple times.

[228:02] The ladies opened a taxi stand within the Hotel Baldorado. They furnished a desk and a phone, and in exchange, recommended the hotel as the best place to stay. And they purchased 1019 Spruce Street, a few blocks away, for themselves and their three children. They would keep this as their home base for 25 years. The resentment of their male competitors grew, not just towards Florence and Mabel, but any of the successful women that were becoming more vocal in the workplace. Business and professional women's clubs became a popular source of support. In 1923, Florence Maple and some two dozen other most visible women formed a club in Boulder. Members included Judge Linda Lee, Boulder's first female justice of the Peace, Mary Cowie, Boulder's female postmaster, Ida Campbell, Boulder's first female councilperson, and Jesse Fitzpatrick, Principal of Whittier Elementary School.

[229:04] All roles previously held by men. While these women seemed fearless in a man's world, driving was one activity that actual fearlessness was required, especially on the unpaved, steep mountain roads of the 1920s. One of the most interesting routes, newly completed in 1920, was Fall River Road. The road still runs through Rocky Mountain National Park from near the park's eastern boundary in Esthes Park, along the Fall River to Grand Lake. And driving the road was terrifying. A park ranger had to be stationed at many of the switchbacks to rescue frightened motorists. And as many cars lacked the power to make the steep grade, inexperienced motorists were flummoxed that they had to drive backwards, uphill, or give up and go home. Because driving was so new, many tourists rented a car and a driver to take them between hotels and cabins and to guide them.

[230:04] In 1919, 25,000 visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park hired a driver to guide the tour. By the 1921 season, nearly 96,000 people preferred to tour with a professional driver. With daily rates of $3 to $7 per passenger, this was at least an annual half-million dollar industry. Florence and Mabel wanted a piece of that pie. However, a few years earlier, the National Park Service had awarded an exclusive franchise to the Rocky Mountain Transportation Company. The transportation company was the only business allowed to carry passengers into the park for profit. The monopoly meant that Florence and Mabel couldn't offer a tour of Rocky Mountain National Park. They could not drive a tour group on a loop that included the park, and they couldn't drive through the park for their wider-ranging tours. Florence and Mabel publicly opposed the transportation monopoly in Rocky Mountain National Park, and signed a petition stating that the monopoly was unfair to businesses, and

[231:08] to the future of Boulder's tourism industry. Harry Ingalls, a Boulder dentist, wrote an article countering the petition, arguing that the monopoly was necessary for regular service and fixed charges. He called out the names of all those that had signed the petition, which ran on this page. Opposite this ad. A coincidence, perhaps, but the beginning of a campaign that led Florence and Mabel writing to friends in Syracuse that they had received threats from the Ku Klux Klan. Undeterred, Florence and Mabel decided to test the law. In 1924, rangers in Rocky Mountain National Park arrested them for driving passengers for hire through the park. Their deliberate act of civil disobedience led to 3 hours in jail for the women. They were charged and faced up to 5 years in federal prison.

[232:12] With the trial pending. Boulder was officially cut out of circular park loops in a year that tourism hit new highs. 1925 saw what the Daily Camera described as crushes of tourists. Over the next few years, taxi service in Boulder became a brutal battleground of the sexes. Since the early 1920s, the Colorado and Southern Railroad had issued a concession intended to try to eliminate the great army of taxi and baggage solicitors. The exclusive franchise had been previously awarded to Fred Fair. He would meet all trains and direct travelers to his taxi cab drivers. At the end of 1925, after Boulder's busiest tourist year yet, the concession was issued to Florence and Mabel.

[233:04] Only their fleet of cars were allowed to park near the railroad depot and collect arriving passengers. Competitors were furious, not only that Florence and Mabel received the monopoly on collecting all tourists arriving by train, but also that the ladies and their employees would take them to the Baldorado rather than other hotels. After smear campaigns, complaints to the police, and physical intimidation failed to bully the women into giving up the concession, the taxi men lobbied city council to pass an ordinance banning the practice. They finally succeeded in May 1926. Ordinance 1169, aimed at correcting the taxicab nuisance at the depot, eliminated the exclusive It's a franchise held by Florence & Abel. It detailed the rules that taxi men would have to follow, and allowed the Molloy Maclay Company a taxi stand within the station.

[234:00] Councilmember Ida Campbell voted no, and called the law a new joke. It didn't address women's needs to feel safe and not crushed by men at the station. Believing they were following the rules set out by the ordinance, Florence and Mabel opened an office in the ladies' waiting room of the train depot. It lasted 18 days. Three male taxi drivers filed a complaint against Florence and Mabel. They claimed that the ladies were soliciting business at the train station. In an unfair manner, as the men could not go into the ladies' waiting room. Judge Linda Lee sided with the men and ordered Florence and Mabel out of the station entirely. The day after the judgment, Florence and Mabel sold the taxi business and four of their 6 cars. They received a word… they received word a year later that the federal case against them for driving in Rocky Mountain National Park had been dropped.

[235:01] at the assistance of the Colorado General Assembly. A bill to cede jurisdiction over the roads in the park to the federal government was passed in February 1929, and the monopoly continues to this day. By then, Florence and Mabel had left the cutthroat taxi business. They opened the Double M Ranch in Gold Hill and ran a more traditional hotel business with horse riding and auto tours until the 1940s. Through this series, the Historic Preservation Team and the Landmarks Board have been looking at how historic places give context to events that shaped history in Boulder and beyond. But often, these historic places focus on wealth, ownership, and business success. Florence and Mabel have been highlighted many times as Boulder's first female taxi drivers, and many of the places associated with that success are protected through designation.

[236:04] But there are missing parts of the story at each of these landmarks. Missing are the stories of how Florence and Mabel outwardly presented themselves, what they chose to share about their lives so they would not be socially ostracized, and how they fought and lost a battle to be treated as equals. Likewise, Mary Cowie's story is grounded in professional success. She worked in leadership roles for four decades, but pieces of the story are missing here, too. The places she lived. And worked. Don't acknowledge her personal struggles with having to choose between family and career. Aura just completely overlooked. Thank you for your time today. I hope you enjoyed learning about some of Boulder's lesser-known history, and how it connects with national history. I also hope we can continue a conversation of how to preserve Boulder's historic built resources that have power to honor, acknowledge, and memorialise a wider range of people in our history.

[237:19] Thanks, Claire. Anyone have any questions? Sadly, I think this is really interesting, I'm just, 10 o'clock. I have a quick… I have a quick question. I'm gonna just ask this out of ignorance, and this is… this is coming from the architect, but those images of the old Union Depot. We're… That building… does that building still exist? And… Yeah. Loose? Is that the one that's up by the, what do they call it? trans. Yeah, okay, okay. The red… it's, like, painted red now, right?

[238:04] Yeah. So, does the stone… maybe I'll just go check it out. Thanks. You should go check it out. Let me see if I can go back there… This is the building. 2 days ago. Okay. yesterday, actually. Yesterday. It's an individual landmark. It has been moved. Twice. Now. Oh, wow. Yeah, originally it was at 14th and Canyon, Where the train tracks went through along Canyon, when they removed the train tracks, they moved the building to where Whole Foods and, barnes & Noble. is today, which was the backgrounds, I believe? Girl strength, yeah. And then it moved again.

[239:03] Interesting. Yeah. Sorry, that wasn't on topic, necessarily. But I love those old photographs of the buildings. Well, it was also interesting to see the 1929 picture that showed the… the Denver interurban. In front of that building. Oh, right. Which… We've been promised we'll get restored at some point. Thank you. Great. Renee, back to you. To me… Adjourn. I know. Meeting is adjourned, I assume, at… 10.01 PM.

[240:03] Thank you, everybody. Thank you.